- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) WE are, in these batch of cases, called upon to decide the question whether the deemed vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short 'the Act'] would amount to taking de facto possession depriving the land holders of the benefit of the saving Clause under Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [for short 'the Repeal Act']. Hari Ram, respondent herein, had filed a statement on 28.9.1976 giving details of the vacant land he was holding in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, as provided under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority under the Act surveyed the land and the respondent was served with a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act on 13.5.1981, calling for objection to the draft statement within thirty days. No objection was preferred by the respondent and it was found that he was holding excess land measuring 52,513.30 sq. meters and an order to that effect was passed by the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, vide his proceeding dated 29.6.1981.
(3.) THE competent authority later issued a notification dated 12.6.1982 under Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act, which was published in the Government Gazette on 12.6.1982 giving the particulars of the vacant land held by the respondent. The competent authority then issued a notification dated 22.11.1997, which was published on the same date, stating the land shall be deemed to have been vested with the Government from 12.6.1982, free from all encumbrances. On 10.6.1999, the competent authority vide its letter dated 10.6.1999 informed the Bandobast Chakbandi Adhikar that the surplus land declared as per the Notification stood vested in the State Government. On 19.6.1999, the prescribed authority issued a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act directing the respondent to hand over possession of the land declared as surplus to a duly authorized person. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal No.29 of 1999 before the District Judge, Varanasi under Section 33 of the Act, contending that before passing the order under Section 8(4) of the Act, no notice, as contemplated under Section 8(3) of the Act, was served on him. The appeal was allowed and the order dated 29.06.1981 was quashed, vide judgment dated 14.12.1999.;