IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State must establish the voluntary surrender of vacant land or forceable dispossession under the ULC Act. Failure to do so entitles the landowner to the benefit of the Repeal Act, resulting in the abatement of the ceiling proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

The instant Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the State challenging the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal in Appeal No. Ahmedabad/5/1999 under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

2. The brief facts relevant to decide the matter at hands are that the land-in-question namely Survey No. 143/2 admeasuring 3339 sq.mtrs., situated at Village : Gota, Ahmedabad (Daskroi) was sold by the original land holder-Shivabhai Virabhai Prajapati vide sale deed dated 10.02.1976 in favour of one Devrajbhai Khunabhai Rabari, as the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.7. It seems that in the proceedings conducted by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short referred to as ‘the ULC Act’), the competent authority passed order dated 09.08.1990 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring 2339 sq.mtrs. of excess land from Survey No. 143/2, on the premise that the original owner could not produce any document like agreement to sell, sale deed etc. to show that the said transaction was bona fide and not to defeat the object of the ULC Act, inasmuch as, the sale deed was executed between 17.02.1975 and 28.01.1976, being the appointed date. Final Statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, was issued on 06.10.1990 and was served to the landholders. A notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was published on 07.03.1991 giving the particulars of the vacant lands held by the legal heirs of the deceased Shivabhai Virabhai Prajapati (original owner) in excess to the ceiling limit. A notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published on 23.02.1994 intimating that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and such land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In the meantime, the original owner namely Shivabhai Virabhai Prajapati had expired on 1.11.1995.

3. Another notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published in the name of Sivaben, wife of the deceased Shivabhai Virabhai Prajapati. Thereafter, the notification under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to the landholder on 03.07.1996 to surrender or return the possession of the excess vacant lands to the State Government within 30 days. It was stated in the writ petition that the said notice was served personally upon the landholder on 07.08.1996. Subsequently, another notice under Section 10(6) of the Act was served on the landholder on 14.05.1977 stating therein that since the land holder had failed to surrender or return the excess vacant land, the possession of which was to be taken by the State Government. It is stated that the possession of the land-in-question was taken after drawing panchnama on 12.12.1997. A perusal of the copy of the panchnama indicates that it does not bear the signature of the landholders, who were in actual physical possession of the land-in-question at the time of drawing of the panchnama.

4. In the year 1999, the heirs and legal representatives of the respondent no.2 had filed an appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act challenging the order passed by the competent authority dated 09.08.1990 on the ground that the land-in-question was purchased vide sale deed dated 10.02.1976 and the possession was also handed over to the transferee. The inclusion of the said land-in-question in the proceedings under the ULC Act was illegal, and moreover no notice or opportunity has been granted to the purchaser. The said appeal was allowed on 20.02.1999. The contention in the writ petition was that the appeal was allowed by the appellate authority without giving opportunity of hearing to the competent authority and moreover, the appeal was hopelessly barred. With the notification issued