Civil Law  - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, 10(5), 10(3) - Land in question - Possession - Justifiability - Appellant issued notice u/s. 10(5) of the 1976 Act for taking possession of appellant's land - Land notified was vested in Government and respondents Additional Collector and Competent Authority was authorized by State Government to take possession of the land in question, details of which was published in notification u/s. 10(3) of the 1976 Act and land be handed over or possession be given within 30 days from date of receipt of the notice - Appellant failed to give possession of land, necessary action would be taken for taking possession by application of necessary force - Aggrieved appellant filed petition before HC - Petition was disposed of by HC and granted relief to appellant in respect of survey no.47/10, but so far as survey No.54/4 was concerned as already indicated appellant was granted liberty to move Civil Court for establishing his claim over property in question - Hence instant appeal - Therefore, it was indicated that it was always open to authorities to take forcible possession and, in fact, in notice issued u/s. 10(5) of the 1976 Act, it was stated that if possession was not 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 was nothing to show that respondents had taken peaceful possession, nor there was anything to show that appellants had given voluntary possession - Facts would clearly indicated that only de jure possession had been taken by respondents and not de facto possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act - Since there was nothing to show that de facto possession had been taken from appellants prior to execution of possession receipt in favour of Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MRDA), it should not hold on to lands in question, which were legally owned and possessed by appellants - Appeals allowed.

Topic(s)-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)