Zainulabedin Abdul Razzak Kokni And ... vs The Additional Collector And Competent ... on 27 April, 2026
In the case of Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Ors. vs. State
of Gujarat & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court once again took into
consideration the position of law elucidated in the judgements of the
Supreme Court in the cases from State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram
(supra) onwards and considered two specific questions. This
concerned the question as to whether delivery of notice on the
possessors of the concerned lands, under Section 10(5) of the ULC
Act, was a mandatory step and if actual possession of the lands was
not transferred despite recording of the land in the name of the
State, the same would result in the proceedings being abated under
16/26
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 01:44:36 :::
WP_3922_16.doc
Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act. After taking into consideration the
earlier judgements, the Supreme Court observed that when the
mandatory requirement of delivery of notice under Section 10(5) of
the ULC Act was violated, it meant that the legal process of acquiring
possession was still ongoing, leading to abatement of proceedings
under Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act. The relevant observation
reads as follows
'22.8. Similarly, we are unable to agree with the
contention of the respondents that the appellants
cannot claim a right to receive notice under Section
10(5) of the ULC Act. The propriety of the sale deed
executed in favour of the appellants is immaterial.
Section 10(5) mandates the delivery of notice to the
person(s) in possession of the concerned lands. On
the date of issuance of notice (22.11.1990), the
appellants as possessors did not receive the same. It
was sent to the erstwhile owner of the subject land.
This also implies that the respondents also were
aware of the fact that actual possession was not
with them and there was a need to issue notice
under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act before taking
over actual possession. However, the respondents
did not ascertain as to in whose name actual
possession stood. Therefore, no notice was issued to
the appellants and hence there being no transfer of
possession in accordance with Section 10 of the ULC
Act, it continues with the appellants both in fact as
well as in law. Hence, they are entitled to the
benefit of Section 4 of the Repealing Act as they do
not fall within the scope of Section 3 of the said Act
which is the savings clause. The omission to issue
notice to the appellants violated the mandatory
requirement of serving notice under Section 10(5)
and meant that the legal process of acquiring
possession was still ongoing, leading to abatement
of proceedings under Section 4 of the Repealing Act
on its enforcement.'