Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh, J.—These are large number of writ petitions in which several points are there but more or less they are common and therefore, for convenience, as requested by both sides all are being taken together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Facts are not in much issue except formal and usual denial without any supportive material and thus the Court feels that by making cases in bunch covered by a particular point, all may be decided in one go.

3. All the writ petitioners challenges the interference by the District Administration in their rights to continue in peaceful possession on the pretext of the land having declared as surplus under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

4. We are to first notice the facts which are stated in all the petitions mainly to the same effect in different language, which can be summarised as under—

5. Petitioners are owner and in possession of the land in dispute. Although the land was declared as surplus but at no point of time actual physical possession was taken by the competent authority. In some of the cases proceedings/notice is said to have been given against the dead person and in some of the cases proceedings only upto issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 herein after referred to as the Act remained and that too without any proper service on the land holder. In some of the cases notice is said to have been issued under Section 10(6) of the Act but it has not been served and in some of the cases for taking the actual physical possession there is no document on record. In some of the cases although Dhakhalnama is there but there is no detail of the witness i.e. father’s name, address and in none of the cases competent authority is said to have taken possession. Lekhpal, Consolidation Officer and other alike authorities are not competent to take possession. In none of the cases there is any overt and positive action on the part of the respondents to display taking of the actual physical possession. Taking of possession in none of the cases being in accordance with law even if there is some entry in favour of the respondents that cannot be indicative of taking of actual physical possession.

6. Thus on the facts and totality of the situation emphasis is that petitioners continued and are continuing in actual physical possession over the land in dispute and the actual physical possession having not taken in accordance with law by the competent authority petitioners will continue with their rights and they will be entitled to get their name/entry restored in the revenue papers if that has been expunged.

7. It is in the aforesaid premises, we are to just refer relevant provisions of the Act then the decided cases on the points of this Court and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in which more or less various aspects touched by this Court has been confirmed.

8. In the beginning it will be useful to quote various sub. Clauses of Section 10 of the The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regular) Act, 1976, relevant for our purposes :

“10(3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

10(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authori