GAJANAN KAMLYA PATILversusADDL. COLLECTOR & COMP. AUTH. & ORS.

                       [2014] 1 S.C.R. 1032


A                  GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL
                               v.
          ADDL. COLLECTOR & COMP. AUTH. & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 2069 of 2014)
                       FEBRUARY 14, 2014
B
     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.)

       Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: s.10(3),
  (4), (5), (6) - Notice issued under the ULC Act to the
C appellants-land owners to hand over possession of the land
  in question and in case of failure, authorities would take
  necessary action for taking possession by application of
  necessary force - Meanwhile, Act repealed - Notice
  challenged by land owners - Held: Nothing to show that land
D owners had voluntarily surrendered or authorities had taken
  peaceful or forcible possession of land in question - It was
  always open to the authorities to take forcible possession and,
  in fact, in the notice issued u/s. 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was
  stated that if the possession is not surrendered, possession
E would be taken by application of necessary force - For taking
  forcible possession, certain procedure had to be followed - No
  case made out by authorities that such procedure was followed
  and forcible possession was taken - Further, there was nothing
  to show that the authorities had taken peaceful possession,
F nor there was anything to show that the land owners had given
  voluntary possession - Facts clearly indicated that only de jure
  possession was taken by the authorities and not de facto
  possession before coming into force of the repeal of the Act
  - Therefore, it cannot hold on to the land in question, which
  were legally owned and possessed by the land owners -
G Consequently, the notice and subsequent action taken therein
  in view of the repeal of the ULC Act quashed - Urban Land
  (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

        The appellant was issued a notice dated 17.2.2005
H                            1032
 GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. ADDL. COLLECTOR & 1033
               COMP. AUTH.
 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and             A
 Regulation) Act, 1976 for taking possession of his land
 bearing Survey Nos.47/10 and 54/4. Aggrieved by the
 notice, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High
 Court to quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and also for a
 declaration, inter alia, that the land bearing Survey No.54/   B
 4 admeasuring 1870 sq. meters was in the physical
 possession of the appellant and would continue to vest
 as such with the appellant as true and actual owner
,thereof. The appellant also sought a declaration that in
 view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal         c
 Act, 1999, the proposed action of the authorities for taking
 possession of the land be declared as null and void and
 also prayed for other consequential reliefs.

    The High Court after examining the provisions of the
ULC Act as well as the provisions of the ULC Repeal Act         D
and also taking note of the affidavit filed by the State
Government and by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (MMRDA) noticed that so far as
Survey No.47/10 was concerned, the possession was not
takeri over by MMRDA. However, as far as land in Survey         E
No.54/4 was concerned, the appellant was granted liberty
to move the civil court for establishing his claim over the
property in question. The instant appeals were filed
challenging the order of the High Court.
                                                                F
     Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. The Competent Authority published a
notification dated 17 .1.2000 under Section 10(1) of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act)
in the Gazette of Government of Maharashtra wherein the         G
land held by the appellant was shown as the land to be
acquired by the Government of Maharashtra. Following
that, notification dated 14.3.2000 under Sub-Section (3) of
Section 10 of the ULC Act was published notifying the
                                                                H
   1034    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A public that the land shown in the schedule therein was
  covered and the land in Survey No.54/4 as well would be
  considered to be acquired by the Government of
  Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.6.2000 and the said land would be
  vested with the Government of Maharashtra from the said
B date. The Competent Authority then issued yet another
  notification dated 2.8.2002 for information of the public
  that the land described in the schedule therein which
  included the land in Survey No.54/4 as well, have been
  considered to be acquired by the Government of
c Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.9.2002 and the said land would be
  vested for all purposes free from all charges to the
  Government of Maharashtra from the said date. The
  Competent Authority issued a show cause notice under
  Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 of the ULC Act to the
  appellant to hand over possession of the land in question
0
  within 30 days from the date of receipt of that notice. It
  was also indicated therein that if the appellant failed to
  give possession of the land, necessary action would be
  taken for taking possession by the application of
E necessary force. (paras 8, 9] (1038-G-H; 1039-A-E]

       2. All the proceedings were initiated under the ULC
  Act, 1976, but the said Act was repealed by the Parliament
  by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
  1999 on 22.3.1999 which came into force w.e.f. 11.1.1999.
F The State of Maharashtra by its notification dated
  1.12.2007 adopted the Repeal Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.12.2007.
  After adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999, on 1.12.2007, the
  Circle Office executed "possession receipt". No notice,
  admittedly, was given to the appellants before executing
G the possession receipt. An additional affidavit was filed
  by the Competent Authority stating that he could not find
  any document like Panchanama or possession receipt in
  respect of the land covered by Survey No.54/4 and few
  other Survey numbers. Another affidavit dated 2.7.2010
H by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development
  GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. AQDL. COLLECTOR & 1035
                COMP. AUTH.
Department, Government of N!aharashtra was to the                  A
effect that the possession had not been handed over by
the landowner to the Competent Authority. Apart from the
affidavits filed by the officials, no other document was
made available either before the High Court or before this
Court, either showing that the appellant had voluntarily           B
surrendered or the Respondents had taken peaceful or
forcible possession of the lands. [paras 10-12] [1039-E-
H; 1040-A, 0-E; 1041-E]
     State of UP v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280:2013 (2) SCR
 301 - relied on.                                                  C
       3. It was always open to the authorities to take forcible
  possession and, in fact, in the notice issued under Section
  10(5) of the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession
  had not been surrendered, possession would be taken
                                                                   0
  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 the respondents had taken
  peaceful possession, nor there was anything to show that         E
  the appellants had given voluntary possession. Facts
  would clearly indicate that only de jure possession had
  been taken by the 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               F
· possession was taken from the appellants prior to the
  execution of the possession receipt in favour of MRDA, it
  cannot hold on to the lands in question, which were legally
  owned and possessed by the appellants. Consequently,
  the notice dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken           G
  therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act are quashed.
  [para 13] [1045-D-H; 1046-A]
                       Case Law Reference:
      2013 (2) SCR 301          relied on            Para 6        H
    1036    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2069 of 2014.

        From the Judgment and order dated 12.07.2010 of the
    High Court of Bombay in WP No. 1669 of 2000.
B                                 WITH

    Civil Appeal No. 2070-71 of 2014.

      Shekhar Naphade, Vinay Kumar Kankari, Sushil
C Karanjkar, Ratnakar Singh (for K.N. Rai) for the Appellant.

       A.S. Bhasme, Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Manish Pitale, Asha
    Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
        K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question
  whether the High Court was justified in relegating the parties
  to file Civil Suits to recover the lands covered by Survey No.54/
E 4 and Survey No.53/3, both admeasuring 1870 sq. meters,
  situated at Village Kasarwadavli, Ghodbunder Road, Taluka
  and Distt. Thane, so as to get the benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling
  and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

F       3. We may, for the disposal of these appeals, refer to the
  facts in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
  No.14690 of 2011, treating the same as the leading case. The
  Appellant herein was issued a notice dated 17.2.2005 under
  Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
  1976 (for short 'U LC Act') for taking possession of the
G Appellant's land bearing Survey Nos.47/10 and 54/4. It was
  stated in the notice that in accordance with the notification
  published in Part-I, Page No. - Konkan Division Supplementary,
  dated 12.12.2002, in the Gazette of Maharashtra, the land
  notified had been vested in the Government of Maharashtra
H
GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. ADDL. COLLECTOR & 1037
   COMP. AUTH. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
and that Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane         A
{for short "Competent Authority"), had been authorized by the
State Government to take possession of the land in question,
details of which had been published in the notification under
Section 10(3) and the land be handed over or possession be
given within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.         B
Further, it was also intimated that if the Appellant had failed to
give possession of the land, necessary action would be taken
for taking possession by application of necessary force.

     4. The Appellant, aggrieved by the above-mentioned
notice, filed Writ Petition No.1669 of 2010 before the Bombay        C
High Court to quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and also for a
declaration, inter alia, that the land bearing Survey No.54/4
admeasuring 1870 sq. meters is in the physical possession ·of
the Appellant aod would continue to vest as such with the
Appellant as true and actual owner thereof. The Appellant also       D
sought a declaration that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proposed actior:i of the
Respondents or State or its authorities for taking possession
of the land be declared as null and void and also prayed for
other consequential reliefs.                                         E

     5. The High Court after examining the provisions of the
ULC Act as well as the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and also taking note of the
affidavit filed by the State Government and by the Mumbai F
Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) noticed
that so far as Survey No.47/10 is concerned, the possession
had not been taken over by MMRDA. However, as far as land ·
in Survey No.54/4 was concerned, after noticing that
possession had been taken over, the High Court disposed of · G
the Petition granting relief to the Appellant in respect of Survey
no.47/10, but so far as Survey No.54/4 is concerned, as already
indicated, the Appellant was granted liberty to move the Civil
Court for establishing his.claim over the property in question.

     6. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel                 H
    1038    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the issue raised in
  this case stands fully covered by the judgment of this Court in
  State of UP v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 and that the High
  Court has committed a grave error in holding that the MMRDA
  is in possession of the land in Survey No.54/4 and hence the
B question as to whether possession had been legally taken or
  not has to be decided by the Civil Court. Learned senior
  counsel also submitted that the State of Maharashtra has
  adopted the Repeal Act, 1999 on 1.12.2007 and that
  Respondent No.1 had executed the possession receipt in
c favour of Respondent No.3 on 2. 7.2008 behind the back of the
  Appellant, without following the due process of law. Learned
  senior counsel submitted that since possession had not been
  taken in accordance with law, the Appellant is entitled to the
  benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999, as was rightly held in respect
  of Survey No.47/10.
0
       7. Shri A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel appearing for the
  Respondents, on the other hand contended that the High Court
  has rightly come to the conclusion that the land in question had
  been taken over by MMRDA and being a disputed question of
E fact, the same cannot be decided by the High Court under
  Section 226 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy
  available to the Appellant is to file a Civil Suit to establish his
  right since the dispute is of a civil nature. Learned counsel,
  therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
F
        8. We may, at the outset, point out that almost all the legal
   issues urged before us stand covered by the judgment of.the
   this Court in Hari Ram (supra). However, reference to few facts
   is necessary for the disposal of these appeals. The Competent
.G Authority published a notification dated 17.1.2000 under
   Section 10(1) of the ULC Act in the Gazette of Government of
   Maharashtra on 15.6.2000, wherein the land held by the
   Appellant was shown as the land to be acquired by the
   Government of Maharashtra. Following that, a notification dated
 H 14.3.2000 under Sub-Section (3) of Sect.ion 10 of the ULC Act
  GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. ADDL. COLLECTOR & 1039
      COMP. AUTH. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
was published notifying the public that the land shown in the        A
schedule therein is covered and the land in Survey No.54/4 as
well would be considered to be acquired by the Government
of Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.6.2000 and the said land would be
vested with the Government of Maharashtra from the said date.
                                                                       B
        .9. The Competent Authority then issued yet another
  notification dated 2.8.2002 for information of the public that the
  land described in the schedule therein which included the land
  in Survey No.54/4 as well, have been considered to be
  acquired by the Government of Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.9.2002 C
  and the said land would be vested for all purposes free from
  all charges to the Government of Maharashtra from the said
  date. The Competent Authority, as already indicated, issued a
  show cause notice dated 17.2.2005 under Sub-Section (5) of
  Section 10 of the ULC Act to the Appellant to hand over
  possession of the land in question within 30 days from the date D
  of receipt of that notice. It was also indicated therein that if the
  Appellant failed to give possession of the land, necessary action
  would be taken for taking possession by the application of
  necessary force.
                                                                       E
         10. We may indicate that all the above-mentioned
  proceedings were initiated under the ULC Act, 1976, but the
  said Act was repealed by the Parliament by the Urban Land
  {Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on 22.3.1999 which
  came into force w.e. f. 11.1.1999. The State of Maharashtra vide F
  its notification dated 1.12.2007 adopted the Repeal Act, 1999
  w.e.f. 1.12.2007. After adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999, on
  1.12.2007, the Circle Office Balkum, Ta Iuka & Distr~-;t Thane,
  executed "possession receipt" on 2.7.2008 of the land bearing
· Survey No.54/4 belonging to the Appellant in favour of the Chief G
  Surveyor of MMRDA, pursuant to the orders of the Collector,
·Thane dated 1.7.2008. No notice, admittedly, was given to the
  Appellants before executing the possession receipt. In this
  case, an additional affidavit dated 29.4.2010 was filed by fhe
   Competent Authority stating that he could not find any document H
    1040     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A like Panchanama or possession receipt in respect of the land
  covered by Survey No.54/4 and few other Survey numbers. The
  operative portion of the affidavit reads as follows :-

        "I have stated in my affidavit in reply dated 20.3.2010 that
B
        on 2. 7.2008 the Circle Officer has delivered the
        possession of the land bearing Survey No.103/3 area
        3890 sq. mtrs., 3/10 area 3600 sq. mtrs., 98/6 area 1708
        sq. mtrs., 53/3 area 2450 sq. mtrs., 54/4 area 1870 sq.
        mtrs to the MMRDA. I state that I have inspected my record,
        however, I could not find any document like panchanama
c       or possession receipt in respect of aforesaid lands by
        which its possession was obtained from the land holder
        under Urban Land Ceiling Act."

       11. We have another affidavit dated 2. 7.2010 by the
D Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,
  Government of Maharashtra, wherein he has categorically
  stated that the possession had not been handed over by the
  landowner to the Competent Authority. The operative portion
  of the same reads as under :-
E
       "The records of right of the said land have been mutated
       in favour of the Government on the basis of the notification
       issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act. I say and
       submit that on enquiry, it is revealed that, though the notice
       under Section 10(5) was issued on 17.02.2005 for handing
F      over possession of the surplus vacant land, the possession
       of land has not been handed over by concerned landowner
       to the Competent Authority or to his representative."

    The Affidavit also further reads as under :-
G
        "Therefore, Government was under impression that since
        the land has been vested into the Government as per the
        notification under Section 10(3) dated 02.08.2002, the
        Government has every right to use the said land for public
        purpose. I say that, in the aforesaid background, the
H
 GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. ADDL. COLLECTOR & 1041
     COMP. AUTH. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    decision was taken to allot the land to Mumbai                    A
    Metropolitan Region Development Authority, and
    therefore, as per the directions of the Government and
    subsequent directions of Collector, Thane, the Circle
    Officer, Balukm, Distt. Thane handed over the possession
    of the surplus land to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region             B
    Development Authority on 02.07.2008."

The affidavit also says that actual possession was not taken
over as per the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 before
29.11.2007. The operative portion of the same reads as under:-        C

     "I say and submit that, even though the possession of the
     land has been handed over to the Mumbai Metropolitan
     Region Development Authority by Circle Officer, Balkum
     on 02.07.2008, the actual possession of said surplus land
     was not taken over as per the provisions of the ULC Act,         D
     1976 before 29 .11.2007."

     12. We may indicate, apart from the affidavits filed by the
officials in this case, no other document has been made
available either before the High Court or before this Court, either   E
showing that the Appellant had voluntarily surrendered or the
Respondents had taken peaceful or forcible possession of the
lands. In Hari Ram (supra) this Court examined the meaning
and context of Sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 10 of the ULC
Act and held as follows :
                                                                      F
     "30. Vacant land, it may be noted, is not actually acquired
     but deemed to have been acquired, in that deeming things
     to be what they are not. Acquisition, therefore, does not
     take possession unless there is an indication to the
     contrary. It is trite law that in construing a deeming           G
     provision, it is necessary to bear in mind the legislative
     purpose. The purpose of the Act is to impose ceiling on
     vacant land, for the acquisition of land in excess of the
     ceiling limit thereby to regulate construction on such lands,
     to prevent concentration of urban lands in the hands of a        H
    1042   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 1 S.C.R.


A      few persons, so as to bring about equitable distribution.
       For achieving that object, various procedures have to be
       followed for acquisition and vesting. When we look at those
       words in the above setting and the provisions to follow such
       as sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10, the words
B      "acquired" and "vested" have different meaning and
       content. Under Section 10(3), what is vested is de ju re
       possession not de facto, for more reasons than one
       because we are testing the expression on a statutory
       hypothesis and such an hypothesis can be carried only to
c      the extent necessary to achieve the legislative intent.

       Voluntary surrender

       31. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our
       view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession
D      though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily
       surrendering or delivering possession. The Court in
       Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1977 (1) SCC 155), while
       interpreting Section 117(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
       and Land Reforms Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word
E      of slippery import and has many meanings and the context
       controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the
       particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning. The
       Court in Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (2000 (8) SCC 99)
       held as follows: (SCC p. 114, para 28)
F             "28 .... We do find some contentious substance in
              the contextual facts, since vesting shall have to be
              a 'vesting' certain. 'To "vest", generally means to
              give a property in.' (Per Brett, L.J. Coverdale v.
              Charlton (1878) 4 QBD 104 (CA): Stroud's Judicial
G             Dictionary, 5th Edn., Vol. VI.) Vesting in favour of
              the unborn person and in the contextual facts on the
              basis of a subsequent adoption after about 50
              years without any authorisation cannot however but
              be termed to be a contingent event. To 'vest', cannot
H             be termed to be an executory devise. Be it noted
GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. ADDL. COLLECTOR & 1043
    COMP. AUTH. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
         however, that 'vested' does not necessarily and          A
         always mean 'vest in possession' but includes 'vest
         in interest' as well."

  32. We are of the view that so far as the present case is
  concerned, the word "vesting" takes in every interest in the
                                                                  8
  property including de jure possession and, not de facto but
  it is always open to a person to_ voluntarily surrender and
  deliver possession, under Section 10(3) of the Act.

  33. Before we examine sub-section (jf and sub-section
  (6) of Section 10, let us examine tbe meaning of sub-           C
  section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, which says that during
  the period commencing on the date of publication under
  sub-section (1 ), ending with the day specified in the
  declaration made under sub-section (3), no person shall
  transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any       D
  excess vacant land, specified in the notification and any
  such transfer made in contravention of the Act shall be
  deemed to be null and void. Further, it also says that no
  person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such
  excess vacant land. Therefore, from the date of publication     E
  of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with
  the date specified in the declaration made in sub-section
  (3), there is no question of disturbing the possession of a
  person, the possession, therefore, continues to be with the
  holder of the land.                                             F

  Peaceful dispossession

  34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks
  of "possession" which says that where any land is vested
  in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section        G
  10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order
  any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender
  or transfer possession to the State Government or to any
  other person, duly authorised by the State Government.
                                                                  H
    1044   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A      35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the
       State Government by the two deeming provisions under
       sub-section (3) of Section 10, there is no necessity of
       using the expression "where any land is vested" under sub-
       section (5) of Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of
B      possession under sub-section (3) of Section 10 can be
       voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as
       provided under Section 11 of the Act early. Once there is
       no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession,
       necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in
c      writing under sub-section (5) of Section 10 to surrender or
       deliver possession. Sub-section (5) of Section 10
       visualises a situation of surrendering and delivering
       possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10
       contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.
D
       Forceful dispossession

       36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only
       when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order
       under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) of
E      Section 10 again speaks of "possession" which says, if
       any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made
       under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take
       possession of the vacant land to be given to the State
       Government and for that purpose, force-as may be
F      necessary-can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore,
       contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to
       comply with the order under sub-section (5), in the event
       of which the competent authority may take possession by
       use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore,
G      is being resorted to only in a situation which falls under sub-
       section (6) and not under sub-section (5) of Section 10.
       Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the
       situations i.e. taking possession by giving notice, that is,
       "peaceful dispossession" and on failure to surrender or
       give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), then
H
GAJANAN KAMLYA PATIL v. ADDL. COLLECTOR & 1045
    COMP, ·Al:tTR.jK.S_LRADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    "forceful dispossession" under sub-section (6) of Section        A
    10.

    37. The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections
    (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word
    "may" has been used therein, the word "may" in both the
                                                                     8
    sub-sections has to be understood as "shall" because a
    court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs
    to decide the consequences that the legislature intended
    to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect
    of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section      C
    (6) of Section 11 is that it might result in the landholder
    being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word
    "may" has to be read as "shall"."

      13. We have, therefore, clearly indicated that it was always
open to the authorities to take forcible poss~ssion and, in fact,    D
in the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, it was
stated that if the possession had not been 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              E
were followed and forcible possession was taken. Further,
there is nothing to' show that the Respondents had taken
peaceful possession, nor there is anything to show that the
Appellants had given voluntary possession. Facts would clearly
indicate that only de jure possession had been taken by the          F
Respondents and not de facto possession before coming into
force of the repeal of the Act. Since there is nothing to show
that de facto possession had been taken from the Appellants
prior to the execution of the possession receipt in favour of
MRDA, it cannot hold on to the lands in question, which are          G
legally owned and possessed by the Appellants. Consequently,
we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash the notice dated
17.2.2005 and subsequent action taken therein in view of the
repeal of the ULC Act. The above reasoning would apply in

                                                                     H
    1046    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   respect of other appeals as well and all proceedings initiated
    against the Appellants, therefore, would stand quashed.

         14. The Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. However, there
    shall be no order as to costs.
B D.G.                                          Appeals allowed.