Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others vs State of Gujarat & Others

Held: Requirement of issuance of notice u/s.10(5) is mandatory and must be issued to the persons actually in possession of the concerned land – This is clear from the wording of the statuteorder any person who may be in possession of it – Importance of delivering notice lay in avoiding a situation where a person is “dispossessed” without notice which would be in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby clearly envisioning that the possessor must be served with notice – As per the provisions of s.10(3) and 10(5), the subject land, despite having ‘vested’ in the State Government, was not in the possession of the Government – Possesion of the land continued with the appellant – Proviso to s.4 not applicable and the benefit of abatement under the section would apply – Legislative intent is that in cases where lands were deemed to have been vested but possession was not yet transferred as on date of enforcement of the Repealing Act, the lands were to remain in possession of the private parties – Vesting and possession are distinct and that without the latter, the private parties have a claim over continuing to be in possession – On the date of issuance of notice, the appellants as possessors did not receive the notice – It was sent to the erstwhile owner of the subject land – This also implies that the respondents also were aware of the fact that actual possession was not with them and there was a need to issue notice u/s.10(5) before taking over actual possession – However, the respondents did not ascertain as to in whose name actual possession stood – Thus, no notice was issued to the appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession in accordance with s.10, it continues with the appellants both in fact as well as in law – Hence, entitled to the benefit of s.4 of the Repealing Act as they do not fall within the scope of s.3 of the said Act which is the savings clause – Omission to issue notice to the appellants violated the mandatory requirement of serving notice u/s.10(5) and meant that the legal process of acquiring possession was still ongoing, leading to abatement of proceedings u/s.4 of the Repealing Act on its enforcement – Abatement of proceedings is by operation of law based on the facts of each case and once the proceedings u/s.10 abate, the consequential reliefs would have to be granted to the appellants – Hence, the appellants entitled to all consequential reliefs pursuant to the abatement of the proceedings u/s.4 of the Repealing Act as the case of the appellants squarely falls within the scope of the provision – Division Bench of the High Court not right in holding that the appellants not in possession of the subject land on the date on which the ULC Act came into force and were illegal occupants; and that although the electricity bills showed the name of the appellants, it did not establish their possession u/s.10(5) – Impugned orders of the High Court set aside. [Paras 18.1, 18.3, 19.2-19.4, 22 22.1-22.9, 23]