Mandatory Service of Notice Under Section 10(5) Is a Prerequisite for De Facto Possession to Prevent Abatement.

The petitioners, descendants of Gokul (the original tenure holder), challenged ceiling proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("Act, 1976") regarding Gata Nos. 773 and 789 in Village Sonakpur, Moradabad

The State declared 7114.40 sq. meters as vacant surplus in 1980

Respondents claimed possession was taken on 27.08.1984 and transferred to the Moradabad Development Authority (MDA) in 1990 for a residential scheme

petitioners contended they remained in possession, noting that the possession memo lacked signatures of land owners

revenue records were only mutated to the State in 2018 (during the pendency of this writ)

physical inspection showed private abadi (settlement) and agricultural activities on the land

1. Whether the State took actual de facto physical possession of the surplus land prior to the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999

2. Whether the ceiling proceedings stand abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure for taking possession

3. Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches

The court primarily applied Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999

"vesting" under Section 10(3) does not equate to de facto possession and that the Repeal Act abates proceedings if actual physical possession was not taken

the service of notice under Section 10(5) is mandatory and the burden of proving de facto possession lies strictly on the State

The court found the State failed to prove it followed the mandatory procedure under Section 10(5). The notice for surrender of possession was not signed or received by any land holders

the 1984 possession memo lacked the owners’ signatures, indicating only "paper possession"

The State admitted revenue entries remained in the petitioners' names until 2018. Evidence, including site reports and photographs, demonstrated that private settlements and agricultural crops existed on the plots, contradicting the State's claim of possession for a development scheme

Regarding delay, the court reasoned that since actual possession never transferred and the petitioners only faced interference recently, they were entitled to seek relief despite the passage of time, as "forcible taking over" never acquired legitimacy

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the proceedings against the disputed land, and restrained the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession