Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14.1 It   was   submitted   that   in   this   case,   notice  under   sub­section   (5)   of   section   10   of   the   ULC  Act has not been served upon the petitioner, and  hence,  without   service  of notice,  the next  step  of   taking   possession   under   sub­section   (6)   of  section   10   of   the   ULC   Act   could   not   have   been  resorted   to. In support  of such  submission,  the  C/LPA/1664/2004 JUDGMENT learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision  of this court in the case of Indrajitsing P. Geel   v.   Competent   Authority   and   Deputy   Collector   &   Anr.,  2006 (3) G.L.H. 487, wherein the court has  held   that   it   is   not   open   for   the   authorities  under the ULC Act to resort to the provisions of  sub­section   (6)   of   section   10   of   the   ULC   Act  without   first   complying   with   the   provisions   of  sub­section (5) thereof.

14.2  Next it was submitted that assuming for the  sake   of   argument   that   the   notice   under   sub­ section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act has been  served upon the petitioner, no notice whatsoever  under   sub­section   (6)   of   section   10   of   the   ULC  Act   has   even   been   issued   by   the   respondents.  Thus, non­service of notice under sub­section (6)  of   section   10   of   the   ULC   Act   would   render   the  possession   if   any,   taken   subsequent   thereto  invalid.   Referring   to   the   panchnama   dated  16.03.1990   at   Annexure­RIV   to   the  affidavit­in­ reply  filed   by   the   Competent   Authority,   it   was  submitted that the same does not disclose as to  which   part   of   the   survey   number   possession   has  been   taken   over   nor   has   any   map   been   produced  along   with   the   panchnama   demarcating   the  boundaries   of   the   lands   of   which   possession   is  alleged to have been taken over. It was submitted  C/LPA/1664/2004 JUDGMENT that in the light of the glaring infirmities in  the   procedure   followed   by   the   respondent  authorities, the so­called possession taken over  on 16.03.1990 is illegal and has no sanctity in  the eye of law and in the absence of possession  having been taken over prior to the coming into  force   of   the   Repeal   Act,   the   proceedings   under  the ULC Act would abate. 

15. Opposing   the   petition,   Mr.   Pranav   Trivedi,  learned Assistant Government Pleader, invited the  attention of the court to the  affidavit­in­reply  filed  by the  Competent   Authority   to submit  that  notice under sub­section (5) of section 10 of the  ULC   Act   had   been   issued   to   Shri   Chandulal  Zaverbhai   Patel   on   31.08.1989   and   the   same   was  duly served upon him. It was submitted that the  notice under sub­section (5) of section 10 of the  ULC   Act   was   sent   to   the   petitioner   through  Registered Post A.D., the acknowledgment receipt  whereof was available on the record; however, the  concerned Deputy Mamlatdar, Shri Ashok D. Lodhe,  in   the   year   2010,   has   misplaced   the   original  C/LPA/1664/2004 JUDGMENT Registered Post A.D. slip and in respect of the  same, a show cause notice was issued to him and  after   considering   the   reply   submitted   by   him,  punishment   has   also   imposed   upon   him.   It   was  submitted that thus, the original Registered Post  A.D.   slip,   whereby   the   petitioner   has  acknowledged the notice under sub­section (5) of  section   10   of   the   ULC   Act   is   presently   not  available   on   record,   though   earlier   it   was   in  fact available on the record of the case. It was  contended that all the proceedings under the ULC  Act   have   been   duly   followed   by   the   Competent  Authority,  viz.  the order  under  section  8(4)  of  the   ULC   Act   declaring   the   lands   to   be   excess  vacant   came   to   be   passed   by   the   Competent  Authority and was duly served upon the declarant;  the final order came to be made under section 9  of   the   ULC   Act;   notification   under   sub­section  (1) of  section  10 of  the ULC  Act was  issued  on  02.01.1986, notification under sub­section (3) of  section  10  of the ULC  Act came  to be  issued  on  08.01.1987;   and   notice   under   sub­section   (5)   of  section  10  of the ULC  Act came  to be  issued  on  31.08.1989   and   was   duly   served   upon   the  petitioner; however, since the petitioner did not  hand   over   peaceful   possession   of   such   lands  within a period of thirty days from such notice,  on   16.03.1990,   the   possession   of   the   said   land  was taken over in the presence of panchas under 

C/LPA/1664/2004 JUDGMENT

18. A perusal of the record of the case reveals  that there is no acknowledgment receipt regarding  service   of   notice   under   sub­section   (5)   of  section   10   of   the   ULC   Act   on   the   original  petitioner   ­   Shri   Chandulal   Zaverbhai   Patel. 

However, a dispute has been raised in the further  affidavit   filed   by   the   respondents   stating   that  though such acknowledgment receipt was on record  it   was   subsequently   misplaced   by   the   concerned  Deputy Mamlatdar. Nonetheless, as rightly pointed  out   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner,  the   ULC   Act   contemplates   not   only   issuance   and  service   of   notice   under   sub­section   (5)   of  section 10 of the Act but also under sub­section  (6)   of   section   10   of   the   ULC   Act,   if   after  service   of   notice   under   sub­section   (5)   of  section   10   of   the   ULC   Act,   possession   is   not  surrendered or delivered peacefully. A perusal of  the record of the case reveals that no notice has  been   issued   to   the   petitioner   under   sub­section  (6)   of   section   10   of   the   ULC   Act.   At   this  juncture reference may be made to the decision of  the Supreme Court in the case of  State of Uttar   Pradesh   v.   Hari   Ram   (supra),   on   which   strong  reliance   has been  placed  by the  learned  counsel  for the  petitioner.  The  court,  in the  decision,  has   held   that   the   requirement   of   giving   notice  under sub­sections (5) and (6) of section 10 of  the ULC Act is mandatory. It has been held that  C/LPA/1664/2004 JUDGMENT the   ULC   Act   provides   for   forceful   dispossession  but only when a person refuses or fails to comply  with an order under sub­section (5) of section 10  of the ULC Act. Sub­section (6) of section 10 of  the ULC  Act again  speaks   of "possession",  which  says,   if   any   person   refuses   or   fails   to   comply  with   the   order   made   under   sub­section   (5),   the  competent   authority   may   take   possession   of   the  vacant land to be given to  the State Government  and for that purpose, force - as may be necessary  ­   can   be   used.   The   court   has   held   that   sub­ section (6), therefore, contemplates a situation  of   a   person   refusing   or   failing   to   comply   with  the order under sub­section (5) of section 10 of  the ULC Act, in the event of which the competent  authority   may   take   possession   by   use   of   force.  Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is  being resorted to only in a situation which falls  under   sub­section   (6)   of   section   10   of   the   ULC  Act and not under sub­section (5) of section 10  of   the   ULC   Act.   Sub­sections   (5)   and   (6)   of  section 10 of the ULC Act, therefore, take care  of   both   the   situations,   that   is,   taking  possession   by   giving   notice   that   is,   "peaceful  dispossession"   and   on   failure   to   surrender   or  give   delivery   of   possession   under   section   10(5)  of   the   ULC   Act,   then   "forceful   dispossession"