Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.1 Petitioner herein is said to be the granddaughter of one Smt.Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy.No.152/2, which totally measured 01 Acre 35 cents, and several other properties. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the ULC Act, 1976'), the petitioner's grandmother, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, before the first respondent giving particulars about the vacant lands held by her in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the said Act. The first respondent after conducting enquiry, prepared a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, indicating that the land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy.

No.152/2A was found to be in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the said Act. The draft statement along with notice dated 19.05.1984 was issued to the land owner calling upon her to file objections, if any, within 30 days therefrom. The same was served on her on 04.06.1984. Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai filed her objections. The first respondent after considering the objections, passed an order under Section 8(4) of the said Act observing that Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai was holding land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2A in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the ULC Act, 1976, and thereafter, prepared a final statement under Section 9 of the said Act. The final statement along with the notice dated 07.06.1986 was served on the land owner on 15.07.1986. Subsequently, the first respondent issued notification dated 26.08.1986 under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 11.09.1986, giving particulars of the vacant land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 held by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai in excess of the ceiling limit. It is stated that since no claim of any interested person in the said vacant land was received by the first respondent within the period of 30 days from 26.08.1986, it issued notification dated 29.10.1987 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 03.12.1987 declaring that the excess land referred to in the notification published under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with effect from 20.12.1987. Pursuant to the said notification, the name of the 'Government' was entered in respect of the said excess land in the revenue records. Notice dated 01.02.1988 was issued to the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, represented by her special attorney holder, Sri Vasudeva Kamath, intimating her that physical possession of the excess land would be taken on 12.02.1988. On the said day, possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government from the land owner. The first respondent - competent Authority, by its order bearing No.ULC:S:375:76- 77 dated 23.03.1994, determined the compensation of Rs.4,822/- in respect of the said excess land and passed the award.

- 11 -

8. In the present case, the proceedings (referred supra) were initiated by the first respondent under the ULC Act, 1976 and the said authority issued notification dated 29.10.1987 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 03.12.1987, declaring that the vacant land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 held by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai was in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the ULC Act, 1976, and the said land was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with effect from 20.12.1987. Subsequently, notice dated 01.02.1988 was issued to the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, represented by her special attorney holder, Sri Vasudeva Kamath, intimating her that physical possession of the excess land would be taken on 12.02.1988. On the said day, possession of the land in question was taken by the Government under the Mahazar vide Annexure-R1 to the Statement of Objections. As could be seen from the records, thereafter, nothing has taken place with reference to the aforesaid land till the year 2013.

- 24 -

19. The learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing this writ petition, would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited reported in ((2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 493). In the said matter, the lands which were the subject-matter in the appeals, had been purchased by the respondent therein - Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited from the original declarants / landowners during the years 1991-92. After the order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed and notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC 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. The Apex Court, having regard to the undisputed fact that the respondent had purchased the property from the declarant which was vested with the State Government under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act in terms of Section 10(3) notification under the said Act, held that the transfer of the said property in favour of the respondent, who was claiming its interest in the said property