Possession, Not Paper Vesting, Determines Abatement Under ULC Repeal; SC Allows Appeal and Sets Aside Gujarat HC Orders
Copy Link
Share
Save
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal by sub-plot holders challenging the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of their petitions seeking NOCs and a declaration that no non‑agricultural permission was required, all arising from a Competent Authority order declaring a portion of Survey No.339, Katargam, Surat, as “excess vacant land” under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). The principal question related to whether proceedings under the ULC Act abated on the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Repeal Act) because the State had not taken de facto possession in accordance with Section 10(5) and (6) of the ULC Act.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Gujarat High Court orders and held that mere vesting of title by operation of Section 10(3) did not operate as transfer of de facto possession; possession required either voluntary surrender, service of the mandatory notice under Section 10(5) on the actual possessor followed by peaceful delivery, or forcible dispossession under Section 10(6). The Court emphasised that the requirement of notice under Section 10(5) was mandatory and that “the word ‘may’ in both the sub‑sections has to be understood as ‘shall’.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be summed up thus:
[1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be.
[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law.
[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether “taking of such possession” is valid or invalidated on any of the considerations in law.
[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only.
[5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act without resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.
[6] The requirement of giving notice under sub‑sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word “may” has been used therein, yet the word “may” in both the sub‑sections should be understood as “shall” because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement.
[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub‑section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March 1999.
[8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub‑section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub‑section (6) of Section 10.”
Background The dispute concerned a 9,303 sq. metre parcel (Survey No.339) in Katargam, Surat. After the ULC Act came into force, the family of the original owner filed declarations under Section 6(1). The land was auctioned in 1981 to a society and sub‑plots were allotted to unit holders who took possession and constructed industrial units from 1983–84. Subsequent revenue proceedings led the State (on revision) to declare 662.18 sq. metres as excess land on 16.01.1989; a Section 10(5) notice dated 22.11.1990 was issued to the original owner but not to the actual sub‑plot possessors. A Panchnama dated 21.01.1992 recorded that possession was taken. Sub‑plot holders were later denied NOCs for sale, and they challenged the declaration and the NOC refusals before the Gujarat High Court; the writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed on findings that the appellants were illegal occupants and that their titles were subject to ULC proceedings.
The Supreme Court reviewed settled precedents including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram and AP Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and reiterated the distinction between de jure vesting of title and de facto possession. The Court held that where de facto possession had not been taken by voluntary surrender, service of notice on the actual possessor or by valid forcible dispossession prior to the Repeal Act, proceedings would abate under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Applying these principles, the Court found that the appellants were in actual possession, that mandatory service under Section 10(5) on the possessors did not occur, and that the State had not proved lawful transfer of de facto possession. The Gujarat High Court’s conclusions were set aside; the appeal succeeded and consequential reliefs (including entitlement to NOCs) followed from abatement. The Court imposed no costs.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6130 OF 2016 (Citation: 2026 INSC 21) Case Title: Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported judgment
Similar Articles
Breaking News
