UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
ALOK SINGH, J.
Sunil Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1731 of 2011
Decided On : 21/04/2014
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act - Property Ownership - Section 6(1), Section 10 - 10(5), 10(6)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a property under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The respondent alleged that the property was subject to acquisition under Section 10 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice under Section 10(5) was not issued and served upon the petitioner, and possession was not delivered or forcefully taken from the petitioner as required by the Act. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Repealing Act of 1999, and the impugned order declaring the land as surplus was quashed.
Issues: Validity of notice under Section 10(5), possession delivery, and forceful possession under Section 10(6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State failed to prove the issuance and service of notice under Section 10(5) and the delivery of possession, entitling the petitioner to the benefit of the Repealing Act of 1999.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the orders declaring the land as surplus were quashed, and the proceedings against the petitioner and the previous owner abated from the date of enforcement of the Repealing Act, 1999.
Undisputedly, Sri Paripurnanand Painuly was the owner in possession of the property in question. Undisputedly, Sri Paripurnanand Painuli submitted his statements under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on 14.9.1976. Undisputedly, Sri Paripurnanand Painuly sold property in question in favour of Moolraj Singh and Ravindar Kumar Talwar vide sale deed dated 11.3.1980. Undisputedly, names of Sri Moolraj Singh and Sri Ravindar Kumar Talwar, purchasers, were mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 29.11.1980. Undisputedly, Sri Moolraj Singh and Sri Ravindar Kumar Talwar, thereafter, sold property in question in favour of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 20.12.1983. Undisputedly, thereafter, name and possession of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record over the property in question vide order dated 4.3.1984.
2. Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Sri Paripurnanand Painuly had expired prior to issuance of alleged notice under Section 10(5) of the Act dated 21.1.1987, therefore, there was no question of issuance and service of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act on Sri Paripurnanand Painuly. Further, sale made by Sri Paripurnanand Painuly in favour of Moolraj Singh and Ravindar Kumar Talwar on 11.3.1980 was valid and was not hit by any provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In the same manner, sale dated 20.12.1983 by Sri Moolraj Singh and Sri Ravindar Kumar Talwar in favour of the petitioner was valid and not hit by any provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
3. According to Mr. R.C. Aray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2, notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10, Annexure No.9 to the counter-affidavit, was issued to Sri Paripurnanand Painuly on 21.1.1987. He, however, does not dispute that Sri Paripurnanand Painuly was not alive on 21.1.1987, therefore, issuance of notice against dead person was not legal. Notice against dead person shall be treated as non est in the eyes of law.
4. Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 reads as under:
' 10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.
(1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that-
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land,
to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit.
(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.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub- section (3)-
(i) no person shall transfer b
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.