SATISH KEWLANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayers:-

(3.) These provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999 were considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280] and it was inter alia held that vesting under Sub Sec. (3) of Sec. 10 meant vesting of title absolutely and not possession, though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. It further held that it was mandatory for the State to issue a notice under Sec. 10 (5) of the Act, 1976 directing the petitioner/land holder to deliver possession to the State, failing which it was mandatory for the State to take forceful possession under Sec. 10(6) of the Act, 1976. It went on to hold as under:-