Belagavi Landowners’ Revenue Entries Restored as Karnataka HC Finds No Proof Revenue Inspector Was Authorized to Take ULC Possession

The respondents challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s 1985 order declaring 7,079.48 sq. metres of land excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“ULC Act”).

The Single Judge allowed their writ petition, finding that the State had not established that possession was taken in compliance with Section 10(6) of the ULC Act; the recorded possession had been taken by a Revenue Inspector.

The State appealed, relying on a later Division Bench decision and was given an opportunity to produce evidence that the Revenue Inspector was authorized to take possession. The State informed the Court that no such authorization record was traceable.

Section 10(5) of the ULC Act provides for notice requiring surrender or delivery of possession; Section 10(6) applies where possession is not surrendered and permits the competent authority to take possession or cause it to be delivered to the State or a person duly authorized by it.

Under Secretary to Government v. Smt. Ningavva, W.A. Nos. 100029 and 100038 of 2021, decided 19 April 2021, possession need not be taken personally by the competent authority: an authorized person may take it under the competent authority’s supervision.

The decision also distinguishes voluntary surrender under Section 10(5), to which Section 10(6) does not apply, from possession taken under Section 10(6), which requires the necessary authorization.

Where possession was not taken as required, Section 4 of the Repeal Act provides for abatement of the proceedings.

The State’s case was that the Revenue Inspector had taken possession. Although Ningavva clarified that an authorized person may take possession, it did not dispense with the requirement of authorization where possession is taken under Section 10(6).

The State produced no authorization and confirmed that no such record was traceable. Nor was the case established as one of voluntary surrender under Section 10(5). Accordingly, the Revenue Inspector’s action did not establish valid possession under Section 10(6), and the Single Judge’s conclusion that the proceedings abated under the Repeal Act stood.

That order held the ULC proceedings abated and directed deletion of the Government’s revenue entries and restoration of the respondents’ and other co-owners’ names.