M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION versus THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1625 · Decided: 27-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1625 : 2025 INSC 274
M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation 
v. 
The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4526-4527 of 2024)
27 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in the instant case, single Judge of the High Court was 
right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit 
of s.3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 
1999. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed 
any error in upsetting the findings recorded by the Single Judge.
Headnotes†
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sub-section (5) 
of section 10 and sub-section (6) of s.10 – Urban Land (Ceiling 
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – s.3 – The Competent 
Authority issued notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act directing the 
appellant to surrender the excess vacant land within 30 days – 
According to respondents, the appellant’s factory was closed 
and the said notice was fixed on the main door of factory 
premises – Due to non-compliance of the aforementioned 
notice, order u/s.10(6) of the ULC Act was issued on 05.02.2008 
authorising the enquiry officer to take over the possession of 
the surplus land – Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer took over 
the possession of the surplus land on 08.02.2008 by way of 
a panchnama – However, it is the case of appellant that the 
respondents allegedly took only symbolic possession of the 
subject land – Thereafter, the State brought into force the 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with 
effect from 27.03.2008 – Writ petition by appellant against 
illegal attempts of dispossession – The Single Judge of the 
High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellant 
and held that order u/s.10(6) was void, illegal and bad in 
law – However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed 
both the appeals filed by the State and thereby set aside the 
judgment and order passed by the Single Judge – Correctness:
* Author
1626
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: The issue as to whether actual possession of land declared 
excess under the Act has been taken over or not assumes great 
significance after the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 
inasmuch as if possession has not been taken over, the proceedings 
would abate u/s.4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the ownership of 
the land, if vested in the State Government u/s.10(3) of the Act, 
1976 would be required to be restored to the original land-holder 
subject to repayment of any amount that has been paid by the 
State Government with respect to such land – The “vesting” in 
sub-section (3) of section 10 means vesting of title absolutely 
and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person 
voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession – Surrendering 
or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can 
be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as 
provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 early – Once there is no 
voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State 
Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) 
to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession – Sub-section (5) 
of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering 
possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 
contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession – The State has to 
establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or 
surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) 
of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of 
Section 10 – On failure to establish any of those situations, the 
landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal 
Act, 1999 – In the case on hand, the State Government has not 
been able to establish any of those situations – The mere paper 
possession would not save the situation for the State Government 
unless the State is able to establish by cogent evidence that actual 
physical possession of the entire land was taken over by evicting 
each and every person from the land – The onus is on the State 
to establish that actual physical possession of the excess vacant 
land was taken over before the repeal – Hence, the Single Judge 
was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the 
benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. [Paras 20, 29, 36, 
38, 39]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sub-section (5) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.