The transfer of property after the statutory vesting of the land with the State Government, as prescribed under Section 10(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, is void ab initio in law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. Our attention was drawn to the original records, the Order under Sections 8(4), 9 and notification issued under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (now repealed) and possession certificates in respect of each case respectively. All the lands which are the subject matter in these appeals have been purchased by the respondent herein from the original declarants/land owners during the years 1991-1992. After the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed, and notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. The same was followed by issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act to the declarant calling upon him to deliver possession of the land declared as surplus. Indisputably, the respondent has purchased the said property after the notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. However, no person is permitted to transfer the title of excess vacant land after the publication of notification, which is prescribed under Section 10(4) of the Act. Section 10(4) of the Act reads thus:

“10 “Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-

(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 by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and

(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land.”

Since, the purchase of the lands is after the statutory vesting of the land with the State Government, therefore, at the instance of the respondent herein, the relief ought not to have granted by the High Court in its favour. The correctness of taking over possession of such excess vacant land declared by the competent authority in the notification published or his authorised officer could not have been examined and granted the relief by the High Court at the instance of the respondent herein, who has purchased the lands, after vesting of the lands with the State Government, which is statutorily void, the learned senior counsel for the appellants Mr. Misra submits that the respondent is not entitled for the relief granted by the High Court in the impugned judgment/ order. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by the High Court, though it is not urged before the High Court. Since it is a legal question and it can be urged at any time, therefore, the said contention is pressed into operation by the learned senior counsel in these proceedings.

4. We have examined this aspect. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the respondent has purchased the property from the declarant which is vested with the State Government under Section 10(5) of the Act in terms of Section 10(3) Notification, therefore, the transfer of property in favour of the respondent, who is claiming its interest in the said property is void ab initio in law. On this ground alone, the order passed by the High cannot be allowed to sustain.

5. It is also brought to our notice by the learned senior counsel Mr. Misra that after the proceedings Under Sections 10(3) and 10(5), notice and the alleged taking over possession of the land in question, the subsequent event has taken place, namely, the said property has been transferred to the Lucknow Development Authority by the State Government and the development authority has laid a park for public use. On this, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the said event has taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Though it may be the fact, subsequently, after the transfer of the propert