By the Court.—These bunch of writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the grievances that inspite of repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short ‘Act’), the respondent-State and its authorities are interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession over urban land. Common ground in this bunch of writ petitions is that the petitioners are in possession of their land and physical possession has not been taken over by the State and its authorities in pursuance of the statutory provisions contained in the Act. Hence, after repealing of the Act, the State and its authorities have got no right to dispossess the petitioners from their land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (7) ADJ 662 (DB) and further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, 2013 (4) ESC 249 (SC).

3. In some of the writ petitions of bunch cases, counter-affidavits have been filed claiming that the possession has been taken over by the State and its authorities.

4. While filing the counter-affidavit a reference has been made to order pass order by the State authority with regard to take over the possession of the land in question. However, learned Standing Counsel has not invited the attention of this Court how and in what manner, the physical possession of the land in question has been taken over. Hence it appears that only on paper the physical possession has been taken over.

5. In contrast, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the possession has not been taken over by following the procedure contained in Section 10 of the Act.

6. Section 10 of the Act requires that a competent authority shall issue notice asking the tenure holders to surrender or deliver the possession of their land to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this regard within 30 days from the date of service of notice.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that till date the petitioners had not surrendered their land in pursuance to Section 10(5) of the Act read with Section 2 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short ‘Repeal Act’) which has been adopted by State of U.P. on 18.3.1999 whereby the State and its authorities have no right to take over physical possession of land in question. The State and its authorities cannot compel the petitioners to surrender their land in view of Repealing Act.

8. In the case of Ram Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has discussed the statutory provisions in detailed and after considering the earlier judgment held that unless physical possession is taken over by way of surrender or otherwise in pursuance to statutory provisions, it shall be presume that physical possession has not been given to the State or its authorities in pursuance of the Act.

9. The Division Bench further held that the mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land on or before 18.3.1999. Burden shall be on the State Government to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act. In any event, on failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act (supra).

10. For convenience paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of Ram Singh’s case (supra) are reproduced as under:

“33. The Court feels that after imposition of ceiling on agricultural land by the State Government and its success in getting the land and its distri