Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of U.P vs Vinod Kumar Tripathi on 19 January, 2016
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, Uday Umesh Lalit
S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 369-370 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2874-2875 of 2015)
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ADARSH SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
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8(4), 9 and notification issued under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (now repealed) and possession certificates in respect of each case respectively.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 Signature Not Verified Act. The same was followed by issuance of notice under Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2016.02.02 16:38:15 IST Reason: Section 10(5) of the Act to the declarant calling upon him to deliver possession of the land declared as S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 2 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 S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 3 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.
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 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.
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 S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 4 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 property in favour of the development authority, the authority has developed a park is an undisputed fact. This is also a very relevant aspect of the matter for this Court to annul the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court.
In our opinion, the respondent herein has no locus standi to challenge the inaction on the part of the appellants viz. not taking possession legally strictly complying with the statutory provisions under Section 10(5) of the Act and taking over possession as provided under Section 10(6) of the Act. At this juncture, this aspect need not be examined by this Court at the instance of the respondent.
For the reasons stated supra, the impugned order passed by the High Court to the extent it granted relief to the respondent herein is liable to be set S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 5 aside and is hereby set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Having allowed the appeals, considering the respondent's submission that the possession of the land was taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act, it is open for the respondent to prefer a claim under Section 11 of the Act for compensation by filing an appropriate application under the provisions of the Act before the appropriate authority, which claim shall be examined independently by the competent authority and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt of such application.
...........................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..........................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 19, 2016 S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 6 ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 38922/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/05/2013 in WP No. 7421/2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) STATE OF U.P & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS VINOD KUMAR TRIPATHI & ORS Respondent(s) (With office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH SLP(C) No. 14069/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to submit additional document(s) and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office Report) (For Final Disposal) SLP(C) No. 16583/2014 (With Office Report) (For Final Disposal) SLP(C) No. 17620/2014 (With Office Report) (For Final Disposal) SLP(C) No. 16582/2014 (With Office Report) (For Final Disposal) SLP(C) No. 27473/2014 (With appln.(s) c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing O.T. and permission to submit additional document(s) and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1182/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) Nos. 2874-2875/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 17799/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 19/01/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 7 CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.N. Misra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Archana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon,Adv SC 38922/13 SC 14069/14 Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv. (Not Present) SC 17620/14 Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Sinha,Adv. SC 16582/14 Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
SC 27473/14 Mr. Sunny Choudhary,Adv. SC 1182/15 & 17799/15 Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta,Adv.
SC 2874-75/15 Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Krishna,Adv.
Mr. Rohit Sthalekar, Adv.
Mr. Avi Tandon, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 38922/2013 Heard.
Not taking possession, as could be seen from the Original Record as also not following the procedure prescribed under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, the special leave petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. SLP(C) No. 14069/2014 & SLP(C) No. 16583/2014 List these cases on 27.01.2016.S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 8
SLP(C) No. 17620/2014 Heard.
It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no document showing possession from the original file, therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. SLP(C) No. 16582/2014 Heard.
From perusal of notice issued under Section 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (“ULC Act” for short), from the original record, the competent authority has authorised the District Magistrate to take possession of the land declared as surplus under Section 10(3) Notification, vide Notification No. 324/I.L.27-U.C.77 dated 9.02.1977, which was published on
12.03.1977. As could be seen from the Possession Certificate under Section 10(6) of the repealed ULC Act, District Magistrate, who has been authorised, possession of the land in question was not taken. The Tehsildar was given liberty to make the mutation proceedings and make entry in the Revenue Records after taking over possession as provided under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and inform the same to the competent authority. The possession of the land in question is not taken from the declarant or his legal representatives in accordance with Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, from the original record it is noted that, there is no signature of taking over possession from the declarant or the legal representatives, more S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 9 so, the competent authority has no power to nominate officer on behalf of the State Government to take possession as provided under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. SLP(C) No. 27473/2014
Heard.
Delay condoned.
From the perusal of the original record with regard to notice, it was issued on 28.10.1993 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (now repealed) much after the purported possession has been taken is shown as on 30.12.1988, therefore, in fact and in law no possession is taken by either the competent authority or any authorised person in terms of Section 10(6) of the ULC Act.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed. Consequently, the pending applications are disposed of. SLP(C) No. 1182/2015
Heard.
Our attention was drawn to Section 10(5) notice and Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 for taking over possession. From the original record, it is brought to our notice that under Section 10(5) of the Act, the authorisation was given by the competent authority to the District S.L.P.(C) No. 38922/2013 etc. 10 Magistrate to take over possession, the competent authority has no power to nominate officer on behalf of the State Government to take possession as provided under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, therefore, the possession is not taken in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. SLP(C) Nos. 2874-2875/2015 Heard.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. SLP(C) No. 17799/2015 Heard.
As could be seen from the original record, possession of the land in question is taken neither by the competent authority or his authorised representative by following the procedure as laid down under Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (now repealed), therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered. Hence, the special leave petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly.
(S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order in C.A. Nos. 369-370/2016 @ SLP (C) Nos. 2874-75/15 is placed on the file)