D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that as no notification has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1976,” for the sake of brevity), the Government of Jharkhand has not acquired the land in question for which it is alleged by the appellant that notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been issued.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondent no. 11 is the holder of the land in question and therefore, respondent no. 11 has filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act, 1976 and thereafter, the form was scrutinized and verified and ultimately notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976 was given to the holder of the land and, thereafter, under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976, necessary notification was also issued, but, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 was issued by the Government. There are several reasons for not issuing to such notification including pending litigation between the purchaser of the land and the holder of the land etc, but, the fact remains that there was no notification issued by the government, for any reason, whatsoever, under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 submitted that he is the holder of the land in question and as possession of the land was never taken over by the State Government, he continues with the ownership under Section 3 and 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and as there is no notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976, the land in question is never vested in the Government nor the possession thereof has been taken over by the Government under Section 10 (6) of the Act, 1976. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004, and, hence this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 vehemently submitted that this appellant has never taken over the possession of the land in question and respondent no. 11 is also not the owner of the property in question, but, respondent nos. 1 to 6 are true, legal and correct owners of the property in question. In fact, respondent nos. 1 to 6 are true, legal and correct owners of the property in question because they have purchased the property from the holder of the property who is the respondent no.11 on much earlier point of time by registered sale deed. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that land in question is not a vacant land, much less, excess vacant land, and, therefore, this Letter Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

REASONS:

5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:-

(i) The form under Section 6 of the Act 1976 was filled up by the holder of the land which is narrated in the memo of this appeal in para-3, thereof the form was filled up under Section 6 of the Act of 1976 by the holder of the land. Thereafter, the said form was scrutinized by the Government of Jharkhand and ultimately notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976, was issued.

(ii) Thereafter, notification under Section 10 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was also issued. Till this notification, no excess vacant land was vested in the Government nor the possession thereof was ever taken by the appellant-Government.

(iii) Admittedly, no notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 1