MUNNU LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- State.

(2.) The issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P, 2010 82 AllLR 136 , wherein it was held that mere symbolic possession does not amount to taking over actual physical possession. It was further held that unless actual physical possession has been taken by the State, the party would be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.

(3.) The same issue has been reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Gajanan Kamlya Patil Vs. Addl. Collector & Comp. Auth. & Ors., 2014 3 JT 211 .