M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.

M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc.

falls for our consideration is whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed any error in upsetting the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

19. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we must look into few relevant provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999 which read as under:- “Section 3. Savings— (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect— (a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; (b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub- section (1) of Section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment or any Court to the contrary; (c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20. (2) Where— (a) 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 (b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, then such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government. Section 4. Abatement of legal proceedings:—All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or any authority shall abate;

p. 1674

Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.”

20. Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, if possession of vacant land has been taken over on behalf of the State Government before the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999, the repeal of the Principal Act would not affect the vesting of such land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Act, 1976. Hence, the issue as to whether actual possession of land declared excess under the Act has been taken over or not assumes great significance after the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 inasmuch as if possession has not been taken over, the proceedings would abate under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the ownership of the land, if vested in the State Government under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 would be required to be restored to the original land-holder subject to repayment of any amount that has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land.

21. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 respectively which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Appeals read as under: “10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit— (5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section(3),the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary”.

p. 1675

22. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the statute contemplates giving an opportunity to the landholder or any person in possession of excess vacant land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government and for this purpose provides for giving notice in writing, ordering such person to surrender or deliver possession of such land. It is only when pursuant to such notice, such person refuses or fails to comply with an order under sub-section (5) within a period of thirty days of the service of notice, that the competent authority is required to take over possession of the vacant land and for that purpose may use force, if necessary. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (6) are to be resorted to only when there is refusal or non-compliance of an order under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 within the prescribed period.

23. In State of Maharashtra v. B.E. Billimoria, (2003) 7 SCC 336, this Court in the context of the Act, 1976 held that the said Act being an expropriatory legislation should be construed strictly.

24. This Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111, in the context of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 held thus:- “The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The state and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof”. (Emphasis supplied)

25. Thus, applying the principle of strict construction as explained in the aforesaid two decisions, the authorities are required to act strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. Thus, when sub-section (5) of Section 10 mandates giving notice of an order under the said sub-section to the person in possession, the same is required to be complied with in its true letter and spirit. Considering the nature of rights involved, mere issuance of notice without service thereof, cannot be said to be due compliance with the provisions of the statute. Besides, the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 10 can be resorted to

p. 1676

only if the person fails to comply with an order under sub-section (5) thereof, within a period of thirty days of service of notice. Hence, possession cannot be taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 unless a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice has elapsed. In absence of service of notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10, there will be no starting point for calculating the period of thirty days. In other words, time will not start running, hence the question of taking over possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 will not arise at all. In this view of the matter, in the case on hand, it was not open to the respondent authorities to resort to the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 without first strictly complying with the provisions of sub-section (5) thereof. Hence, such action being in contravention of the statutory provisions cannot be sustained and deserves to be struck down.

26. The case of Hari Ram (supra) needs to be looked into. In the said case, this Court dealt with the very same issue i.e. deemed vesting of the surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. The matter was from Allahabad. This Court explained the concept of voluntary surrender, peaceful dispossession and forceful dispossession. We may quote the relevant observations:- “18. The legislature is competent to create a legal fiction, for the purpose of assuming existence of a fact which does not really exist. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 contained two deeming provisions such as “deemed to have been acquired” and “deemed to have been vested absolutely”. Let us first examine the legal consequences of a “deeming provision”. In interpreting the provision creating a legal fiction, the court is to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, the court is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. This Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 449] held that what can be deemed to exist under a legal fiction are facts and not legal consequences which do not flow from the law as it stands.

19. James, L.J. in Levy, In re, ex p Walton [(1881) 17 Ch D 746 : (1881-85) All ER Rep 548 (CA)] speaks on deeming fiction as: (Ch D p. 756) “… When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in

p. 1677

fact and in truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to.”

20. In Szoma v. Secy. of State for Work and Pensions [(2006) 1 AC 564 : (2005) 3 WLR 955 : (2006) 1 All ER 1 (HL)] the Court held: (AC p. 574, para 25) “25. … it would … be quite wrong to carry this fiction beyond its originally intended purpose so as to deem a person in fact lawfully here not to be here at all. ‘The intention of a deeming provision, in laying down a hypothesis, is that the hypothesis shall be carried as far as necessary to achieve the legislative purpose, but no further’….” (See also DEG Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v. Koshy [(2001) 3 All ER 878(CA)].)

21. Let us test the meaning of the expressions “deemed to have been acquired” and “deemed to have been vested absolutely” in the above legal settings. The expressions “acquired” and “vested” are not defined under the Act. Each word, phrase or sentence that we get in a statutory provision, if not defined in the Act, then is to be construed in the light of the general purpose of the Act. As held by this Court in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India [(1979) 4 SCC 573 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 92] that a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application of a legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose will reduce most of the remedial and beneficial legislation to futility. Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan [(1994) 3 SCC 440 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 785]. Words and phrases, therefore, occurring in the statute are to be taken not in an isolated or detached manner, they are associated on the context but are read together and construed in the light of the purpose and object of the Act.

22. This Court in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 596 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 792] held: (SCC p. 607, para 12)

p. 1678

“12. It is a well-known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. The courts must look to the object which the statute seeks to achieve while interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary.”

23. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. [AIR 1955 SC 376] , S.R. Das, J. stated: (AIR p. 381, para 6) “6. … The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation.”

25. The word “vest” or “vesting” has different meanings. Legal Glossary, published by the Official Language (Legislative) Commission, 1970 Edn. at p. 302:

p. 1679

“Vest.—(1) To give a person a legally fixed, immediate right or personal or future enjoyment of (an estate), to grant, endow, clothe with a particular authority, right of property, (2) To become legally vested; (TP Act) Vesting order.—An order under statutory authority whereby property is transferred to and vested, without conveyance in some person or persons;”

26. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), 1990 at p. 1563: “Vested.—Fixed;accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not continue ‘vested right’. Vaughn v. Nadel [228 Kan 469 : 618 P 2d 778 (1980)] . See also Accrue; Vest, and specific types of vested interests, infra.”

27. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, of the English Language unabridged, Vol. III S to Z at p. 2547 defines the word “vest” as follows: “‘vest’ vest … To place or give into the possession or discretion of some person or authority [the regulation of the waterways … to give to a person a legally fixed immediate right of present or future enjoyment of (as an estate) (a deed that vests a title estate in the grantee and a remainder in his children) (b) to grant, endow, or clothe with a particular authority right or property … to put (a person) in possession of land by the feudal ceremony of investiture … to become legally vested (normally) title to real property vests in the holder of a property executed deed.]”

28. “Vest”/“vested”, therefore, may or may not include “transfer of possession”, the meaning of which depends on the context in which it has been placed and the interpretation of various other related provisions.

p. 1680

29. What is deemed “vesting absolutely” is that “what is deemed to have acquired”. In our view, there must be express words of utmost clarity to persuade a court to hold that the legislature intended to divest possession also, since the owners or holders of the vacant land are pitted against a statutory hypothesis. Possession, there is an adage is “nine points of the law”. In Beddall v. Maitland [(1881) 17 Ch D 174 : (1881-85) All ER Rep Ext 1812] Sir Edward Fry, while speaking of a statute which makes a forcible entry an indictable offence, stated as follows: (Ch D p. 188) “… This statute creates one of the great differences which exist in our law between the being in possession and the being out of possession of land, and which gave rise to the old saying that possession is nine points of the law. The effect of the statute is this, that when a man is in possession he may use force to keep out a trespasser; but, if a trespasser has gained possession, the rightful owner cannot use force to put him out, but must appeal to the law for assistance.”

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 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 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 “acquired” and “vested” have different meaning and content. Under Section 10(3), what is vested is de jure possession not de facto, for more reasons than one because we are testing the expression on a statutory

p. 1681

hypothesis and such an hypothesis can be carried only to the extent necessary to achieve the legislative intent.

31. The “vesting” in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession 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 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) “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 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 be termed to be an executory devise. Be it noted however, that ‘vested’ does not necessarily and 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 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 (5) and subsection (6) of Section 10, let us examine the meaning of sub- 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

p. 1682

transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any 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 of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made in subsection (3), there is no question of disturbing the possession of a person, the possession, therefore, continues to be with the holder of the land.

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 subsection (3) of Section 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.

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 possession under subsection (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 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.

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 Section 10 again speaks of “possession” which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under sub-

p. 1683

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 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, 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 “forceful dispossession” under sub-section (6) of Section 10.

37. The requirement of giving notice under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word “may” has been used therein, the word “may” in both the 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 (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”. ”

27. In the very same judgment, the effect of the Repeal Act, 1999 has also been discussed. Paragraphs 41 and 42 respectively read as under:- “41. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act, 1999 has expressly repealed Act 33 of

1976. The objects and reasons of the Repeal Act have already been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. The Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case.

p. 1684

42. The mere vesting of the land under subsection (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18-3-1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub- section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.” (Emphasis supplied)

28. A close reading of the above judgment more particularly the dictum laid therein lays down that though Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Central Act), which is pari- materia to Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Ceiling Act), provides that the vacant land is deemed to be acquired, yet it does not mean that the possession of the land has been taken over. This Court has categorically stated that the procedure contained under sub-sections (5) and (6) of the Act, 1976 must be scrupulously followed. This Court was of the view that Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 which is pari-materia to Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act stipulates that any vacant land even if vested in the State under sub-section (3),the competent authority has to by notice in writing order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession of the land to the State Government within thirty days of the service of notice. If the landowner fails or refuses to do so, then the State Government has to follow the procedure under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or Section 11 as the case may be, and take forcible possession.

29. Thus, the dictum, as laid in Hari Ram (supra), is that where the possession of the subject land has not been taken over by the State Government or by any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority, the

p. 1685

proceedings under the Act would not survive and mere vesting of the vacant land with the State Government by operation of law, without actual possession, is not sufficient. To put it in other words, the mere paper possession would not save the situation for the State Government unless the State is able to establish by cogent evidence that actual physical possession of the entire land was taken over by evicting each and every person from the land. The onus is on the State to establish that actual physical possession of the excess vacant land was taken over before the repeal.

30. The proposition of law that mere paper possession is not sufficient to vest the land in the State has been explained by this Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana,,2012 AIR SCW 240. This was a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court, while allowing the appeals and declaring the acquisition illegal, observed that the taking of possession means the actual possession. Paper possession is not sufficient to vest the land in the State. This Court noticed various revenue entries recorded in the revenue records which showed that the crops were grown on the different acquired land said to have been taken over. The Court noticed that the State had not questioned the genuineness and correctness of the entries contained in the revenue records. This Court also took notice of the fact that it was neither pleaded nor any evidence had been produced before the Court to show that the occupant of the land had unauthorisedly taken possession of the land after its acquisition.

31. The decision rendered in the case of Hari Ram (supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of in Vipin Chandra Vadilal Bavishi v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 531. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:- “20. From these facts and the documents available on record, it is evidently clear that neither the Notifications under Sections 10(1), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(5) were issued in respect of plot nos. 36 to 43 nor possession of those plots have been taken over by the respondents. Curiously enough even the map attached to the letter dated 26.6.1989 shows that the possession of plot nos. 1 to 16 were taken and not of plot nos. 36 to 43.

x x x x

p. 1686

23. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280. In this case, a question arose as to whether the deemed vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Act would amount to taking de facto possession depriving the landholders of the benefit of the saving clause under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. After examining in detailed provisions of the Ceiling Act as also the Repeal Act, the Court observed:- “35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under subsection (3) of Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where any land is vested” under subsection (5) of Section

10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under subsection (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 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.

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 Section 10 again speaks of “possession” which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under subsection (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 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

p. 1687

competent authority may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is being resorted to only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under subsection (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 “forceful dispossession” under sub-section (6) of Section 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 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 subsection (5) or sub-section (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”.”

24. The Bench further considered the effect of Repeal Act and held that:- “41. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act, 1999 has expressly repealed Act 33 of 1976. The objects and reasons of the Repeal Act have already been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. The Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case.

42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant

p. 1688

land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18-3-1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

43. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed so also the other appeals. No documents have been produced by the State to show that the respondents had been dispossessed before coming into force of the Repeal Act and hence, the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.”

25. The submission of Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, that mentioning of Plot Nos. 1 to 16 in the Notification issued under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) is a clerical mistake which can be corrected by issuing a corrigendum, is absolutely not tenable in law. How Plot Nos. 1 to 16 can be replaced by Plot Nos. 36 to 43 in those Notifications by issuing a hand-written corrigendum which was not even finally approved by the authorities after 1976 Act stood repealed.

26. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a clerical mistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring due to accidental slip or omissions or error due to careless mistake or omission. In our considered opinion, substituting different lands in place of the lands which have been notified by a statutory Notification under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) cannot and shall not be

p. 1689

done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory requirements contained in the aforementioned sections is complied with. A land holder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clerical or arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuing corrigendum.”

32. We should now look into the decision of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (2015) 5 SCC 321. A cursory reading of this decision may at the first blush create an impression that the dictum as laid in Hari Ram (supra) has been diluted.

33. We quote few relevant paras of the said judgment as under:- “14. We say so because in the ordinary course actual physical possession can be taken from the person in occupation only after notice under Section 10(5) is issued to him to surrender such possession to the State Government, or the authorised officer or the competent authority. There is enough good sense in that procedure inasmuch as the need for using force to dispossess a person in possession should ordinarily arise only if the person concerned refuses to cooperate and surrender or deliver possession of the lands in question. That is the rationale behind Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. But what would be the position if for any reason the competent authority or the Government or the authorised officer resorts to forcible dispossession of the erstwhile owner even without exploring the possibility of a voluntary surrender or delivery of such possession on demand. Could such use of force vitiate the dispossession itself or would it only amount to an irregularity that would give rise to a cause of action for the aggrieved owner or the person in possession to seek restoration only to be dispossessed again after issuing a notice to him. It is this aspect that has to an extent bothered us.

15. The High Court has held that the alleged dispossession was not preceded by any notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Assuming that to be the case all that it would mean is that on 7th December, 1991 when the erstwhile owner was dispossessed from the land in question, he could have made a grievance based on Section 10(5) and even sought restoration of possession to

p. 1690

him no matter he would upon such restoration once again be liable to be evicted under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act upon his failure to deliver or surrender such possession. In reality therefore unless there was something that was inherently wrong so as to affect the very process of taking over such as the identity of the land or the boundaries thereof or any other circumstance of a similar nature going to the root of the matter hence requiring an adjudication, a person who had lost his land by reason of the same being declared surplus under Section 10(3) would not consider it worthwhile to agitate the violation of Section 10(5) for he can well understand that even when the Court may uphold his contention that the procedure ought to be followed as prescribed, it may still be not enough for him to retain the land for the authorities could the very next day dispossess him from the same by simply serving a notice under Section 10(5). It would, in that view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him.

16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. Assuming that a person in possession could make a grievance, no matter without much gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile land owner on 7th December, 1991 as is alleged in the present case any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time of such dispossession. If the owner did not do so, forcible taking over of possession would acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time. In any such situation the owner or the person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. Any other view would, in our opinion, give a licence to a litigant to make a grievance not because he has suffered any real prejudice that needs to be redressed but only because the fortuitous circumstance of a Repeal Act tempted him to raise the

p. 1691

issue regarding his dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure.

17. Reliance was placed by the respondents upon the decision of this Court in Hari Ram's case (supra). That decision does not, in our view, lend much assistance to the respondents. We say so, because this Court was in Hari Ram's case (supra) considering whether the word ‘may’ appearing in Section 10(5) gave to the competent authority the discretion to issue or not to issue a notice before taking physical possession of the land in question under Section 10(6). The question whether breach of Section 10(5) and possible dispossession without notice would vitiate the act of dispossession itself or render it non est in the eye of law did not fall for consideration in that case. In our opinion, what Section 10(5) prescribes is an ordinary and logical course of action that ought to be followed before the authorities decided to use force to dispossess the occupant under Section 10(6). In the case at hand if the appellant’s version regarding dispossession of the erstwhile owner in December 1991 is correct, the fact that such dispossession was without a notice under Section 10(5) will be of no consequence and would not vitiate or obliterate the act of taking possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. That is because Bhabadeb Sarma-erstwhile owner had not made any grievance based on breach of Section 10(5) at any stage during his lifetime implying thereby that he had waived his right to do so.” (Emphasis supplied)

34. We have supplied emphasis on paras 15 and 17 of Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra) referred to above, for the purpose of highlighting that Hari Ram (supra) has not been diluted in any manner. We are of the firm view that Hari Ram (supra) holds the field even as on date. The statements of law in Hari Ram (supra) are absolutely correct.

35. If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both and the only way to do so

p. 1692

is to adopt the wise suggestion of Lord Halsbury given in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495 at p.506 and reiterated by the Privy Council in Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Lahore AIR 1940 PC 230: “…… every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.” and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand.

36. The “vesting” in sub-section (3) of section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. This Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of UP, reported in 1977(1) SCR 1072, while interpreting section 117(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 held that “vesting” is a word of slippery import and has many meaning and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning. This Court in Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (Dead) by L.Rs. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 99, held as follows:- “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, Stroud’s Judicial 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 authorization cannot however but be termed to be a contingent event. To “vest”, cannot be termed to be an executor devise. Be it noted however, that “vested.” does not necessarily and always mean “vest in possession” but includes “vest in interest” as well.” (Emphasis supplied)

37. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 talks of “possession” which says where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of

p. 1693

Section 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 authorized by the State Government.

38. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where any land is vested.” under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.

39. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. In the case on hand, the State Government has in our considered view not been able to establish any of those situations and hence the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999.

40. The effect of Repeal Act, 1999 is further clear. If the landowner remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the State in revenue records, he will not be divested of his rights. Even if compensation is received that also will not dis-entitle him to claim the benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is in actual physical possession. Payment of compensation has no co-relation with the taking of actual physical possession as with the vesting land compensation becomes payable which can be paid without taking actual physical possession.

p. 1694

41. The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be summed up thus: [1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be. [2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law. [3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether “taking of such possession” is valid or invalidated on any of the considerations in law. [4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only. [5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act without resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999. [6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word “may” has been used therein, yet the word “may” in both the sub-sections should be understood as “shall” because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement. [7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March 1999. [8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10.

SCOPE OF INTRA-COURT APPEAL

42. We have noticed that the Division Bench in its impugned judgment has used the expression “shockingly the learned Single Judge” at

p. 1695

various places. We fail to understand what is so shocking in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the Division Bench had to interfere in a writ appeal. Was the Division Bench deciding a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Single Judge? The Division Bench was quite aware that it was deciding an intra court appeal. An intra-court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior court. The Division Bench was not deciding a criminal appeal against the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. The appeal inter se in a High Court from one court to another is really an appeal from one coordinate bench to another coordinate bench and it is for this reason that a writ cannot be issued by one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the High Court nor can even the High Court issue writ to a High Court. Thus, unlikely an appeal, in general, an intra court appeal is an appeal on principle and that is why, unlike an appeal, in an ordinary sense, such as a criminal appeal, where the whole evidence on record is examined afresh by the appellate court, what is really examined, in an intra court appeal, is the legality and validity of a judgment and/or order of the learned Single Judge and it can be set aside or should be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against the established or settled principles of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical has been adopted by a Single Judge, the other view howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench, it is the view adopted by the learned Single Judge, which should, normally, by allowed to prevail.

43. The learned Single Judge after a meticulous examination of the entire record noticed so many deficiencies in the procedure adopted by the State. The plain reading of the impugned judgement gives an impression that all that the Division Bench kept doing was to cure such deficiencies noted by the learned Single Judge by giving benefit of doubt to the State at every possible stage.

44. The State has not been able to give us any satisfactory reply as to on what basis it says that at the relevant point time the factory was closed; there was not a soul in site and therefore, the officials were left with no other option but to affix Section 10(5) notice outside the premises. This is something which is absolutely unpalatable. The State proceeds further saying that as there was no voluntary surrender of the excess land within thirty days from the date of affixation, it

p. 1696

had to invoke Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 and accordingly took over the possession. It is extremely hard to believe that when such a large parcel of land is being taken over the owner would not be present and further would not take any steps in accordance with law.

45. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant herein that not only the factory is still running on the subject-land but there are multi-storeyed residential buildings also constructed therein. It was also pointed out that entire land is encompassed by a boundary wall and the gate is manned by security guard. It was also brought to our notice that the so called panchnama does not contain any site map or distinctive boundaries with special divisions whatsoever. The entire extent of 1,63679 sq.mtrs. is bound by one compound wall. It seems that the Division Bench in its impugned judgment has observed that there is no requirement under the statute for obtaining the signature of the landowner in the panchnama or filing of the affidavits by the panchas. When State Authorities try to take law in their own hands by hook or crook and rely on bogus paper panchnamas for the purpose of asserting that actual physical possession was taken over before the date of the repeal, then it is imperative that the signature of the landowner must be obtained in the panchnama so as to attach sanctity and authenticity to such exercise of taking over of actual possession. Affidavits of the panchas would also attach great sanctity to the same.

46. We have no hesitation in saying that the State has not placed true and correct facts in all respect. Both of us (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, J.J.) have worked as judges in our respective High Courts. We had the occasion to decide many matters exactly of the present type. Our experience so far has been that out of ten matters in nine matters it was apparent that the cases were one of paper possession. The present case is also one of paper possession. The learned Single Judge was constrained to observe that having regard to the materials on record few documents were found to be ante dated coupled with fabrication of evidence to some extent. All this has been dismissed by the Division Bench saying that they could be clerical errors or arithmetical errors.

POWER OF WRIT COURT TO DETERMINE DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT

47. One stock argument available with the State in this type of cases is that the question whether the actual physical possession of the disputed

p. 1697

land had been taken over or not is a seriously disputed question of fact, which the High Court should not adjudicate or determine in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As a principle of law, there need not be any debate on such a proposition, but by merely submitting that it is a seriously disputed question of fact, the same, by itself, will not become a question of fact. To put it in other words, having regard to the materials on record, which falsifies the case of the State Government, then such materials should not be overlooked or ignored by the Court on the principle that the issue with regard to taking over of the actual physical possession would be a disputed question of fact.

48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.

49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences.

50. In the aforesaid context, we may look into the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269. In paragraph 6 at p. 1270 of the said judgment, this Court has been pleased to hold as follows:- “Under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions

p. 1698

of fact raised by the petition. Where an enquiry into complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined. The High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

51. This Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality reported in AIR 1970 SC 602 observed as follows:- “The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Art.226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Art.226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated., or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.” (Emphasis supplied)

p. 1699

52. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 906, this Court observed that:- “28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.

29. Bearing the aforesaid legal principles in mind, we would have to consider whether, in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have dismissed the third writ petition of the first respondent and relegate him to a suit as there existed a serious dispute between the parties regarding taking of possession. More so, when the High Court, in the earlier round of litigation, refrained from taking up the said issue even though it had arisen between the parties.

30. No doubt, in a writ proceeding between the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/ evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not and while doing so, it may draw adverse inference against the State where the statutory mode of taking possession has not been followed [See State of UP vs. Hari Ram (supra)]. However, where possession is stated to have been taken long ago and there is undue delay on the part of landholder in approaching the writ court, infraction of the prescribed procedure for taking possession would not be a determining factor, inasmuch as, it could be taken that the person for whose benefit the procedure existed had waived his right thereunder [See State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (supra)]. In such

p. 1700

an event, the factum of actual possession would have to be determined on the basis of materials/evidence(s) available on record and not merely by finding fault in the procedure adopted for taking possession from the land holder. And if the writ court finds it difficult to determine such question, either for insufficient/ inconclusive materials/evidence(s) on record or because oral evidence would also be required to form a definite opinion, it may relegate the writ petitioner to a suit, if the suit is otherwise maintainable.” (Emphasis supplied)

53. Thus, it would all depend on the nature of the question of fact. In other words, what is exactly, that the writ court needs to determine so as to arrive at the right decision. If the only issue, that revolves around the entire debate is one relating to actual taking over of the physical possession of the excess land under the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 respectively, then in such circumstances, the writ court has no other option but to go into the factual aspects and take an appropriate decision in that regard. The issue of possession, by itself, will not become a disputed question of fact. If all that has been said by the State is to be accepted as a gospel truth and nothing shown by the landowner is to be looked into on the ground that a writ court cannot go into disputed questions of fact, then the same may lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.

54. We are of the considered opinion that the issue as regards taking over of the actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 could be said to be a mixed question of law and fact and not just a question of fact. Mixed question of law and fact refers to a question which depends on both law and fact for its solution. In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time. Mixed questions of law and fact are defined “as questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is resolved and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated”. [Bausch & Lomb v. United States C.I.T. 166, 169 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997]

p. 1701

55. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533, wherein this Court in paras 28 and 29 respectively observed thus:- “28. While it is true that after the 44th Constitutional Amendment [the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978], the right to property drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution, there continues to be a potent safety net against arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms. Despite its spatial placement, Article 300-A [ 300-A of the Constitution:“300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”] which declares that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human right [Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] . To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.

29. The constitutional discourse on compulsory acquisitions, has hitherto, rooted itself within the “power of eminent domain”. Even within that articulation, the twin conditions of the acquisition being for a public purpose and subjecting the divestiture to the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition were mandated [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952) 1 SCC 528]. Although not explicitly contained in Article 300-A, these twin requirements have been read in and inferred as necessary conditions for compulsory deprivation to afford protection to the individuals who are being divested of property [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627; K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] . A post-colonial reading of the Constitution cannot limit itself to these components alone. The binary reading of the constitutional right to property

p. 1702

must give way to more meaningful renditions, where the larger right to property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each with a distinct character but interconnected to constitute the whole. These sub-rights weave themselves into each other, and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that results in the deprivation of private property must be measured against this constitutional net as a whole, and not just one or many of its strands.” (Emphasis supplied)

56. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the Division Bench of the High Court committed an egregious error in interfering with a very well considered and well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. There was no good reason for the Division Bench to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.

57. In the result, both the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is affirmed and restored.

58. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.