CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. Though the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement of this Bench recently rendered on 22.1.2021 in the case of Heirs of Dec. Jethabhai Ishwarbhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants sought to raise certain questions of facts, which in his submission, would set apart this case from the boundaries of the judgement rendered by us on 22.1.2021.

2. In that case interpreting the provisions of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and other relevant provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, we had held as under:

“18. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 after vesting of the surplus land with the State Government provides that the Competent Authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it, to surrender or give the possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government within 30 days of service of notice. The plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 10 means and envisages a notice in writing in the form of an order to surrender or make over the possession to the State. Sub-section (5) notice is not in the form of a show cause notice but in the form of an order apparently because the process of hearing the objections to such declaration of surplus land is already taken care in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 10. Once the land is vested, after dealing with such objections, in the State Government, the only activity remaining to be done is to complete the process and achieve the object of this Act, was to take over the physical possession of such declared excess land. Therefore, a notice in the form of an order was prescribed in sub-section (5) to deliver the possession within 30 days of service of the notice.

19. There is no question of any voluntary handing over of possession on the part of the land owner. Whatever is done under sub-section (5) is done in pursuance of the notice-cum-order of the Competent Authority under Section 10(5) of the Act.

20. The argument based on the premise of voluntary handing over of the possession within 30 days of the said notice-cum-order under Section 10(5) of the Act is, therefore, a misnomer. If the possession is handed over in compliance with the notice-cum-order under Section 10(5) of the Act to the State authorities or person nominated by the State, the proceedings under the ULC Act get concluded under Section 10(5) of the Act. If that is not done by the land owner in pursuance of notice-cum-order under Section 10(5) of the Act, whatever thereafter is done to take over the physical possession of the excess land in question, that can only fall under Section 10(6) of the Act, which says that if any person refuses or fails to comply the order made under sub-section (5), then the Competent Authority may take possession of vacant land and may use such force as may be necessary for that purpose. Sub-section (6) does not require any other notice or order once again to be passed by the Competent Authority. It only envisages act of taking over the physical possession in the manner known to law including Panchnama process and presence of the owner of the land is not a condition precedent for such taking over of the possession. The last part of sub- section (6) is only enabling and empowering provision for the Competent Authority who may use the force for taking over the physical possession, if there is any obstruction or hindrance created by anybody including the land owner in that process. Otherwise use of force is not necessary. Sub-section (6), therefore, is not of an adjudicatory nature, but it only provides for a physical process to take de facto possession with or without the use of force. Then the proceedings under ULC Act get concluded under Section 10(6) of the Act. Both t