Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. We may, for the disposal of these appeals, refer to the facts in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.14690 of 2011, treating the same as the leading case. The Appellant herein was issued a notice dated 17.2.2005 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘ULC Act’) for taking possession of the Appellant’s land bearing Survey Nos.47/10 and 54/4. It was stated in the notice that in accordance with the notification published in Part-I, Page No. – Konkan Division Supplementary, dated 12.12.2002, in the Gazette of Maharashtra, the land notified had been vested in the Government of Maharashtra and that Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane (for short “Competent Authority”), had been authorized by the State Government to take possession of the land in question, details of which had been published in the notification under Section 10(3) and the land be handed over or possession be given within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Further, it was also intimated that if the Appellant had failed to give possession of the land, necessary action would be taken for taking possession by application of necessary force.

8. We may, at the outset, point out that almost all the legal issues urged before us stand covered by the judgment of the this Court in Hari Ram (supra). However, reference to few facts is necessary for the disposal of these appeals. The Competent Authority published a notification dated 17.1.2000 under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act in the Gazette of Government of Maharashtra on 15.6.2000, wherein the land held by the Appellant was shown as the land to be acquired by the Government of Maharashtra. Following that, a notification dated 14.3.2000 under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act was published notifying the public that the land shown in the schedule therein is covered and the land in Survey No.54/4 as well would be considered to be acquired by the Government of Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.6.2000 and the said land would be vested with the Government of Maharashtra from the said date.

“I say and submit that, even though the possession of the land has been handed over to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority by Circle Officer, Balkum on 02.07.2008, the actual possession of said surplus land was not taken over as per the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 before 29.11.2007.”
12. We may indicate, apart from the affidavits filed by the officials in this case, no other document has been made available either before the High Court or before this Court, either showing that the Appellant had voluntarily surrendered or the Respondents had taken peaceful or forcible possession of the lands. In Hari Ram (supra) this Court examined the meaning and context of Sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act and held as follows :

13. We have, therefore, clearly indicated that it was always open to the authorities to take forcible possession and, in fact, in the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession had not been surrendered, possession would be taken by application of necessary force. For taking forcible possession, certain procedures had to be followed. Respondents have no case that such procedures were followed and forcible possession was taken. Further, there is nothing to show that the Respondents had taken peaceful possession, nor there is anything to show that the Appellants had given voluntary possession. Facts would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had been taken by the Respondents and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act. Since there is nothing to show that de facto possession had been taken from the Appellants prior to the execution of the possession receipt in favour of MRDA, it cannot hold on to the lands in question, which are legally owned and possessed by the Appellants. Consequently, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act. The above reasoning would apply in respect of other appeals as well and all proceedings initiated against the Appellants, therefore, would stand quashed.