JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge has held that as no notification has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1976,” for the sake of brevity), the Government of Jharkhand has not acquired the land in question for which it is alleged by the appellant that notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been issued. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondent no. 11 is the holder of the land in question and therefore, respondent no. 11 has filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act, 1976 and thereafter, the form was scrutinized and verified and ultimately notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976 was given to the holder of the land and, thereafter, under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976, necessary notification was also issued, but, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 was issued by the Government. There are several reasons for not issuing to such notification including pending litigation between the purchaser of the land and the holder of the land etc, but, the fact remains that there was no notification issued by the government, for any reason, whatsoever, under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 submitted that he is the holder of the land in question and as possession of the land was never taken over by the State Government, he continues with the ownership under Section 3 and 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and as there is no notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976, the land in question is never vested in the Government nor the possession thereof has been taken over by the Government under Section 10 (6) of the Act, 1976. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004, and, hence this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004, and, hence this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 vehemently submitted that this appellant has never taken over the possession of the land in question and respondent no. 11 is also not the owner of the property in question, but, respondent nos. 1 to 6 are true, legal and correct owners of the property in question. In fact, respondent nos. 1 to 6 are true, legal and correct owners of the property in question because they have purchased the property from the holder of the property who is the respondent no.11 on much earlier point of time by registered sale deed. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that land in question is not a vacant land, much less, excess vacant land, and, therefore, this Letter Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS: 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The form under Section 6 of the Act 1976 was filled up by the holder of the land which is narrated in the memo of this appeal in para-3, thereof the form was filled up under Section 6 of the Act of 1976 by the holder of the land. Thereafter, the said form was scrutinized by the Government of Jharkhand and ultimately notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976, was issued. (ii) Thereafter, notification under Section 10 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was also issued. Till this notification, no excess vacant land was vested in the Government nor the possession thereof was ever taken by the appellant-Government. (iii) Admittedly, no notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 was issued by the State of Jharkhand nor by the then State of Bihar. For the ready reference, Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as under:- 10. (iii) Admittedly, no notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 was issued by the State of Jharkhand nor by the then State of Bihar. For the ready reference, Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as under:- 10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.-- (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under Section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that--- (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3)At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification publish in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3)- (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (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 the 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 authorized by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation.-In this section, in sub-section (1) of section 11 and in section 14 and 23 “State Government”, in relation to- (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government , means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924), means that State Government. (emphasis supplied) (iv) In view of the aforesaid Section 10 (3) of the Act, 1976, unless and until the notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 is issued, the excess vacant land cannot be said to have been acquired by the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither the possession of the land in question has been taken over by the Government under Sec. 10(6) of the Act, 1976. (v) Thereafter, a long drawn proceeding has taken place between the respondents and State Government. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither the possession of the land in question has been taken over by the Government under Sec. 10(6) of the Act, 1976. (v) Thereafter, a long drawn proceeding has taken place between the respondents and State Government. Nonetheless the fact remains that there is no notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 and, hence, the excess vacant land, which is alleged by this appellant, has never been acquired by the State Government. (VI) Thereafter, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 was passed by the Parliament and Section 3 thereof as under:- 3. Saving.-(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 the State Government or any person duly authorized 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 of 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 authorized 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. (emphasis supplied) (vii) In view of the aforesaid Section 3 of the Act, 1999, if the Government has not taken over the possession, the vacant land will never be vested by the Government and, hence, it is vested in the Government. The said land is not saved under Act, 1999. (emphasis supplied) (vii) In view of the aforesaid Section 3 of the Act, 1999, if the Government has not taken over the possession, the vacant land will never be vested by the Government and, hence, it is vested in the Government. The said land is not saved under Act, 1999. Meaning thereby whosoever is holding the land in question or whosoever is successor-in-title of the land in question, who continue with all his right, title and interest upon the property in question, once there is no notification under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 will continue to hold and to have such right, title or interest. The effect of the Repeal Act, 1999 will be that the Government cannot claim the ownership upon the property at all. Such land will remain with the holder of the land or successor-in-title. These aforesaid facts and reasons have also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing an order dated 09.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2014. (Viii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Tewari and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677 in para 21 as under:- “The High Court after considering the said statutory provisions and taking note of the fact that the appellants did not disclose the date of notification under Section 10(1) of the 1976 Act, nor annexed the copy of the same and further presuming that the said notice must have preceded the notice under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act, reached the conclusion that the transfer which had been effected by the recorded tenure-holders in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti on 20-04-1982 was deemed to be null and void by operation of law under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the 1976 Act. We do not see any cogent reason to take a contrary view.” (emphasis supplied) (ix) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar Vs. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Others, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 718 Para no. 10 as under:- “10.We are fortified in our view by a recent decision of this Court in Ritesh Tewari V. State of U.P. This Court in Ritesh Tewari considered the matter thus: (SCC p.682, paras 14-15) “14. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Others, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 718 Para no. 10 as under:- “10.We are fortified in our view by a recent decision of this Court in Ritesh Tewari V. State of U.P. This Court in Ritesh Tewari considered the matter thus: (SCC p.682, paras 14-15) “14. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that as the State Government had not taken possession of the land in exercise of its powers under Section 10(6)of the 1976 Act, on coming of the 1999 Act into force, the proceedings stood abated and the respondents have no business to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 15. We find full force in the submissions so made by Shri Jayant Bhushan to a certain extent, and hold that all proceedings pending before any court/authority under the 1976 Act, stood abated automatically on coming of the 1999 Act into force, provided the possession of the land involved in a particular case had not been taken by the State. Such a view is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Pt. Madan Swarrop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P., Chasitey Lal Sahu v. Competent Authority, Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P and Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport.” (emphasis supplied) (x) In view of the aforesaid decisions, unless the Government has taken over the possession of the excess vacant land, as per Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the land, which is excess vacant land, will continue to remain with the holder of the land in question. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 dated 09.02.2012, so far as right of this appellant is concerned. 7. Hence Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.