LexSTATE OF ASSAM versus BHASKAR JYOTI SARMA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1451 STATE OF ASSAM v. · BHASKAR JYOTI SARMA & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 10565 of 2014) NOVEMBER 27, 2014 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] A B Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999- s. 3- Land in question declared ceiling surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -After declaration, sale C , of the surplus land by (he owner - Possession of the land taken over by the Government- Certain portion of the surplus land allotted to 8 families - The case of purcflasers challenging the vesting of land with Government, dismissed and attained finality - Remaining surplus land allotted to D Development Authority - In the meantime repeal of 1976 Act by the 1999 Act and adoption thereof by the State in August 2003 - Allotment to Authority challenged by the descendants of the owner of the land - Held: repeal of the. principal Act does not affect the vesting of any vacant land u/ E s. 10(3), possession whereof has been taken by the· Government - In the present case possession·was taken prior to adoption of the Repeal Act by the State- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976- s. 10. Allowing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. Section 3 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 (Repeal Act) makes it clear that repeal of the Principal Act i.e._Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not affect the vesting of any G vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession whereof has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in that behalf or by the competent authority. H 1451 1452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014j 14 S.C.R. A In the present case, the appellant-State claims to have taken over the possession of the surplus land prior to adoption of the Repeal Act.· [P,ara 8][1457-G-H] 2 .. The failure of the Government or the authorised officer or the competent authority to issue a notice to B the land-owners in terms of Section 10(5) would not by itself mean that such dispossession is no dispossession in the eye of law and hence insufficient to attract Section · 3 of the: Repeal Act. In the present case, ifthe appellant's version regarding dispossession of the erstwhile owner C in December 1991 is correct, the fact that such dispi>ssession was without a notice under Section 10(5) will be .of no consequence and would not vitiate or obliterate the act of taking possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. That is because the D erstwhile owner had not made any grievance based on breach of Section 10(5) at any stage during his lifetime implying theref>y that he had waived his right to do so. [Paras 11and13][1461-0-E; 1463-G-H] E State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram 2013 (4) SCC 280 : 2013 (2) SCR 301 - distinguished . . ~ .. State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Gyanaba Di/avarsinh . J8,dega 2013 (11) sec 486- referred to. 3;:~The. question of dispossession of the owner or F .. the trarisferee was never agitated or determined by the High C~urt in the writ petition filed by the transferee. It . also does not appear that the respondent would adduce any documentary evidence before the High Court after this case'is remanded and would enable the High Court G to recQrd ~finding in regard to actual possession. That being so;; the question whether actual physical possessio11 was taken over remains a seriously disputed· question of fact which is not amenable to a satisfactory determination by the High Court in proceedings under ·H STATE OF ASSAM v. BHASKAR JYOTI SAR MA & ORS. 1453 ETC. Article 226 of the Constitution. Remand to the l'.figh Court A to have a finding on the question of dispossession, therefore, does not appear to be a viable solution. [Paras 14 and 15)[1464-G; 1466-A-C] 4. The alternate plea of the respondent that the order passed by the High Court is upheld except to the B extent of land to be restored to the respondents ·equivalent to the extent which was ·allotted in favour of Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority is not acceptable. Out of the eight families in whose favour the surplus area was settled in the year 1992, four families C have been allotted disputed land. Such being the case the offer made by the respondent does not appear to be a feasible solution at this stage particularly when the allotments made are not in question nor have the allottees been impleaded as party respondents. [Paras 16 and D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.