Appellants vs Capt. Kuldeep Singh Bajaj
2022 Latest Caselaw 1294 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA

                                    AND

            JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

                 SPECIAL APPEAL No.543 of 2014

                             25th April, 2022

Between:

State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Dehradun and another

                                                       ...... Appellants.

                                     Vs.

Capt. Kuldeep Singh Bajaj                                ...... Respondent.


Counsel for the appellants          : Mr. M.C. Pande, learned Additional
                                      Advocate General along with Mr. J.C.
                                      Pandey, learned standing counsel.

Counsel for the respondent           : Mr. S.K. Jain, learned senior counsel
                                       assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain,
                                       learned counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following


ORDER:    (per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)



             In this special appeal State of Uttarakhand has
assailed the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1477 of 2009 (M/S) allowing
the application filed by the respondent-petitioner thereby
quashing the impugned order dated 05.03.1984 declaring
land as surplus and also ordering that the entire proceedings
against the petitioner abated in view of sub-section (4) of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

2.           Facts of the case, at this stage, are not disputed in
the sense that ceiling was initiated against the respondent
under    the   provisions      of   the    Urban     Land     (Ceiling    and
Regulation) Act, 1976. After due process, it was declared that
 he is in possession of certain portion of land, which is surplus.
When the matter stood thus, the State allegedly took
possession of the land in question. Such orders were
challenged by the respondent before this Court in WPMS
No.1477 of 2009, which was allowed.

3.         The main contention that was raised before the
learned Single Judge was the non-compliance of sub-section
(5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation), Act. It is apparent from the record that the
learned Single Judge took into consideration the reported
case of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram
reported in AIR 2013 SC 1793, wherein the Hob'ble
Supreme Court has held that the compliance of sub-section
(5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation), Act are mandatory and, therefore, any order
passed or any action taken resorting in forcible dispossession
of the land by the State of any surplus landholder shall be
illegal.

4.         It is further brought to our notice that as per the
sub-section 3, the application of the Repeal Act is exempted
from any proceeding in which the State has taken possession
in purported exercise of Section 10 of the Act. However, sub-
section (2) provided that any land is deemed to have vested
in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10
of the principal Act but possession of which has not been
taken over by the State Government or any person duly
authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the
competent authority; and if any amount has been paid by the
State Government with respect to such land then, such land
shall not be restored unless the amount is paid, if any, has
been refunded to the State Government. Thus, it is apparent
that in case where the possession has been taken legally by
compliance of sub-section (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the
Principal Act then only the repealing act will not be applicable.

5.         In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion


                                2
 that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does
not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference of this
Court. Hence, the Special Appeal is dismissed being devoid of
merits.


                          _________________________
                          SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J.


                             __      _______________
                             RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.

Dated: 25th April, 2022 BS/SS