By the Court.—Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Madhusudan Dikshit for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The State has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the Collector Saharanpur dated 29.10.2010 primarily on two grounds, namely, that the Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter to pass any such order relating to the declaration of possession or otherwise, which could have been done only by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The other submission raised by the learned Standing counsel is that the possession of the disputed land from the tenure holder had been taken as per the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, and consequently, once the possession had been taken over, the finding of the Collector that actual physical possession remained with the respondents is of no consequence keeping in view the various pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submits that once the possession had been taken over and it had been handed over to the Saharanpur Development Authority, there was no occasion for the Collector to have commented upon the nature of the proceedings.

3. Sri Madhusudan Dikshit on the other hand for the respondents submits that the Collector has done nothing but simply on the administrative side complied with the directions of the High Court dated 9.4.2009 on making an enquiry with regard to the status of actual physical possession of the respondents and nothing beyond that. He submits that the order of the Collector was not an adjudication of any of the rights of the parties in terms of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and was a compliance order in view of the direction of the High Court dated 9.4.2009 in Writ Petition No. 50818 of 2000.

4. Sri Dikshit further submits that the original tenure holder late Sri Ruknuddin against whom the notice had been issued and the proceedings had been initiated admittedly had died on 22.1.1993. In the circumstances, the notice of possession as alleged by the petitioner-State and appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition was clearly issued in the name of a dead person. There was no occasion for its service on a dead person, and even otherwise, no such notice was served either on the heirs or legal representatives namely the answering respondents who are sons of late Ruknuddin.

5. It has further been submitted that if possession had not been taken either from the original tenure holder or the answering respondents in accordance with the provisions of the 1976 Act, namely after complying with the provisions of Section 10(5) & 10(6) of the 1976 Act, then the tenure holder and his heirs the answering respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act of 1999, and consequently, the land would not vest in the petitioner-State. The same will therefore be treated to have been released, and accordingly, the order of the Collector does not require any interference by this Court. The counter-affidavit has been filed categorically stating the facts as pleaded before us on behalf of the respondents to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner-State. The fact of death of Ruknuddin has not been denied and to the contrary in paragraph No. 11 of the rejoinder affidavit it is admitted that a notice had been issued on 10.4.1998 to the tenure holder who is none else than late Sri Ruknuddin. This is evident also from the recital in the notice as also the possession memo dated 22/23.4.1998 that has been relied upon by the petitioner. It has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit of the State that the land had been declared surplus under the proceedings of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 after the tenure holder had been issued notices and who failed to submit any return to the said notice, and consequently, notices were issued on 9.9.1993 under Section 10(1) of the Act followe