HEADLINE: Suo Motu ULC Proceedings and Symbolic Possession Without Mandatory Section 10(5) Notice Are Non-Est and Abated.

The respondents (Writ Petitioners) claimed ownership of 10 acres of agricultural land in Bachupally Village through agreements of sale in 1981 and registered deeds in 1990/1993

In 2006, thirty years after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (ULC Act), 1976 came into force, the State initiated suo motu proceedings against the original vendors (who were deceased) declaring the land as surplus

The State claimed to have taken possession via a panchanama in 2008

The respondents challenged these proceedings, asserting they were in actual possession and that the proceedings were void due to lack of notice and the death of the declarants. A Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, and the State appealed

1. Whether the competent authority has the jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings under the ULC Act in the absence of an express statutory provision?

2. Whether the ULC proceedings and the subsequent panchanama were void for non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act?

3. Whether the proceedings abated under Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, due to the failure to take actual physical possession?

The Court primarily applied Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976, which dictates the procedure for the acquisition of vacant land, specifically sub-sections (5) and (6) regarding the mandatory notice for surrender and the use of force for possession

It relied on State of UP v. Hari Ram, which established that "vesting" under Section 10(3) is not absolute without de facto physical possession

It further applied Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, which provides that proceedings abate unless physical possession was taken by the State prior to the repeal

The Court also adopted the principle from Roma Bose v. State of West Bengal that authorities lack inherent suo motu power under the ULC Act

The Court reasoned that the initiation of suo motu proceedings 30 years post-enactment was jurisdictional error because the ULC Act provides no express power for such action

Regarding the acquisition process, the Court found that the State failed to prove the service of mandatory notices under Section 10(5). The original records showed no dispatch via RPAD or acknowledgment of service

Applying the Hari Ram doctrine, the Court held that the unilateral panchanama prepared by the State was merely "paper possession" and did not constitute lawful "actual physical possession"

Since the State never legally dispossessed the petitioners before the ULC Act was repealed in the state, the proceedings could not be saved by the Repeal Act's savings clause

Finally, proceedings against dead persons (the vendors) were held to be non-est in law

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, confirming the Single Judge’s order. The State's claim of possession via panchanama was declared void and ineffective against the respondents' continued physical possession