STATE OF U.P. versus HARI RAM

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 11-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 301 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
HARi RAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 2013 etc.) 
MARCH 11, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: 
A 
B 
s. 3 - Saving clause - Held: No documents have been c 
produced by the State to show that the respondents had been 
. dispossessed before coming into force of the Repeal Act and, 
therefore, the High Court is right in holding that the 
respondents are entitled to get benefit of s. 3 of the Repeal 
Act. 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 
D 
s. 10(3) - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling 
limit - Expressions "deemed to have been acquired" and 
"deemed to have vested absolutely - Connotation of - Held: 
E 
'vesting' in sub-s. (3) of s.10 means vesting of title absolutely 
and not possession -
Under s. 10(3), what is vested is de 
jure possession not de facto possession - Mere vesting of 
the land under sub-s. (3) of s.10 would not confer any right 
on the State Government to have de facto possession of the 
F 
vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of 
vacant land before 18.3.1999 - State has to establish that 
there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or 
surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-s. 
(5) of s. 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-s. (6) of s. 10 G 
- On failure to establish any of these situations, the land 
: owner or holder can claim the benefit of s.3 of the Repeal Act 
- Uttar Pradesh Urban Land Ceiling (Taking of Possession, 
Payment of Amount and Allied Matters) Directions, 1gs3. 
301 
H 
302. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant appeals filed by the State Government, 
the question for consideration before the Court was: 
whether the deemed vesting of surplus land u/s 10(3) of 
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would 
amount to taking de facto possession depriving the land 
8 holders of the benefit of the saving clause u/s 3 of the 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Sub-s. (3) of s. 10 of the Urban Land 
C (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 states that after the 
publication of the notification under sub-s. (1 ), the 
competent authority has to declare that the excess land 
referred to in the Notification published under sub-s. (1) 
of s.10 shall, with effect from such date, as might be 
o prescribed in the declaration, be deemed to have been 
acquired by the State Government. On publication of a 
declaration to that effect such land shall be deemed to 
have been vested absolutely in the State Government, 
free from all encumbrances, with effect from the date so 
E specified. [para 16] [317-G-H; 318-A-B] 
1.2 Legislature is competent to create a legal fiction, 
for the purpose of assuming existence of a fact which 
does not really exist. Sub-s. (3) of s.10 contained two 
deeming provisions, such as, "deemed to have been 
F acquired" and "deemed to have been vested absolutely". 
In interpreting the provision creating a legal fiction, the 
court is to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is 
created and after ascertaining this, the court is to assume 
all those facts and consequences which are incidental or 
G inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. 
[para 17] [318-C-EJ 
H 
Delhi Cloth and General Miffs Company Umited v. State 
of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 449; Organo Chemical Industries 
STATE OF U.P. v. HARi RAM 
303 
v. Union of India 1980 (1) SCR 61 = (1979) 4 SCC 573 
A 
·Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan 1994 (1) 
SCR 445 = (1994) 3 SCC 440; S. Gopal Reddy v. State of 
U.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 439 = (1996) 4 sec 596; Jugal 
Kishore Saraf v. Mis Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. 1955 SCR 1369 = 
AIR 1955 SC 376 - referred to. 
B 
Ex-parte, Walton, In re, Levy (1881) 17 Chance. D. 746; 
Szoma v. Secretary of State for the Department of Work and 
Pensions (2006) 1 All E.R. 1 (at 25); DEG Deutsche 
Institutions and another v. Kosby (2001) 3 All E.R. 878 -
C 
referred to. 
1.3 The expression "deemed to have been acquired" 
used as a deeming fiction under sub-s. (3) of s.10 can 
only mean acquisition of title or acquisition of interests 
because till that time the land may be either in the 
D 
ownership of the person who held that vacant land or 
possessed such land as owner or as a tenant or as 
mortgagee and so on as defined uls 2(1) of the Act. [para 
23) [320-C-D] 
E 
Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Z

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