Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 550 (JHR)

Santanu Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-28

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKAR BHENGRA

body2015
Judgment : D. N. Patel, J. L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 dated th February, 2012, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners, who are respondent nos. 4 to 10 in the instant appeal, was disposed of with an observation that all the Urban Land Ceiling cases stood abated, because of operation of Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which affected this appellant, who was one of the respondents in the writ petition and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012: 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008, who is appellant in this appeal, mainly for getting the land released in his favour, which was declared as excess vacant land by order of the Deputy Commissioner, possession whereof was never taken over by the Government under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1996. In this W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2006, one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 was preferred by one of the purchasers of the land, in question viz. Amarendra Kumar Sahay (respondent no.4 in this L.P.A.) for joining him as party respondent in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 and simultaneously the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008, preferred by this appellant, was also finally disposed of vide order dated 2nd November, 2012, observing therein that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings stood abated in pursuance of Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. There being few observations against him, the original petitioner, who is appellant in this appeal, has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008 with I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 by way of this Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012. 3. FACTUAL MATRIX: The appellant in both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals is the holder of the land, in question, from the predecessor-in-title Smt. Gauri Rani Devi by registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1974, ad-measuring 1.61 Acres = 6514 Sq. Mts. 3. FACTUAL MATRIX: The appellant in both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals is the holder of the land, in question, from the predecessor-in-title Smt. Gauri Rani Devi by registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1974, ad-measuring 1.61 Acres = 6514 Sq. Mts. Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'ULC Act, 1976', for the sake of brevity) came into force with effect from 17th February, 1976. However, in the erstwhile State of Bihar it was brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1976-as submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 10. Thus, the present appellant is a holder of the land, in question, who holds the land, in question, as per Section 2(l) of the ULC Act, 1976, in the capacity of owner of the land and, therefore, necessary forms were filled up, under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976 by the holder of the land-appellant in both these Letters Patent Appeals, on 28th October, 1976. On 25th May, 1982 a Power of Attorney was executed by the holder of land-appellant in both these appeals, in favour of Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay to look after the land, in question. On the same date, an agreement to sale was also entered into between this appellant and Savitri Devi, wife of Power of Attorney holder Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay (respondent no.4 in both the Letters Patent Appeals). The Power of Attorney holder Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay sold away the land in favour of his wife, sons and daughters by way of two different registered sale deeds, one dated 17th June, 1982 and another dated 2nd September, 1982. On 8th March, 1988 an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, declaring the entire land as excess vacant land under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976. On 4th June, 1988 notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued, declaring therein that the excess vacant land is to be acquired by the State Government. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 8th March, 1988 the holder of the land, in question viz. On 4th June, 1988 notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued, declaring therein that the excess vacant land is to be acquired by the State Government. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 8th March, 1988 the holder of the land, in question viz. the appellant as well as the purchasers of the land, in question, preferred different appeals under Section 33 of the ULC Act, 1976 being Appeal No. 50 of 1988 and Appeal No. 56 of 1988 respectively, before the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag. On 9th April, 1990, matter was remanded by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag, to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. On 31st December, 1995 the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, again passed an order and by this time the wisdom prevailed upon him and, accordingly, instead of declaring entire land as an excess vacant land, one unit was given to the holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals). This one unit, which was to be retained by the holder of the land, is equal to 1500 Sq. Mts. and rest of the land i.e. 5014 Sq. Mts. of land was declared as excess vacant land. The holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals) being satisfied by this order, never challenged the same by way of Appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act, 1976. Nonetheless, the purchasers of the land, in question-respondent nos. 4 to 10 preferred ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996 under Section 33 of the ULC Act, 1976. This appeal being ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996 (preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, was dismissed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag vide order dated 18th June, 1996. Thereafter, the purchasers of the land, in question, preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2078 of 1996(R) before Ranchi Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court. The Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the authority under ULC Act, 1976. Again the orders were passed and again they were challenged. This continued for two to three times and lastly, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 was preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, challenging two orders viz. The Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the authority under ULC Act, 1976. Again the orders were passed and again they were challenged. This continued for two to three times and lastly, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 was preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, challenging two orders viz. (a) the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad dated 31st December, 1995; and (b) the order, passed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag dated 11th February, 2004, because an order was passed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag, dismissing ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996, preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, vide order dated 11th February, 2004. On 9th February, 2007 a letter was written by the Circle Officer bearing Letter No. 158 for removal of the encroachment upon the land, in question. A suit being Title Suit No. 190 of 1987 was instituted by the holder of the land, in question (appellant in both the appeals) against the purchasers of the land, in question. This Title Suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge0I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. Though the aforesaid Title Suit was dismissed, there were certain observations against the purchasers of the land, in question, and, therefore, the purchasers of the land, in question, as well as the kith and kin of these purchasers, who is Power of Attorney holder, namely, Awadh Kishore Sahay, whose wife, sons and daughters have purchased the land, in question, both preferred Title Appeal No. 3 of 2008 as well as Title Appeal No. 14 of 2008 against the dismissal of Title Suit No. 190 of 1987 by Sub Judge-I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. On 28th April, 2008 the District Judge, Dhanbad, dismissed both the Title Appeals. Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred as 'ULC Repeal Act, 1999' for the sake of brevity) was enacted by the Parliament. Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 have very wide ramifications and, therefore, the holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals) preferred W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008. ULC Repeal Act, 1999 was adopted for the State of Jharkhand with effect from 24th January, 2011. Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 have very wide ramifications and, therefore, the holder of the land (appellant in both the appeals) preferred W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008. ULC Repeal Act, 1999 was adopted for the State of Jharkhand with effect from 24th January, 2011. On 17th October, 2011 the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, passed an order to release the excess vacant land in favour of the holder of the land, in question. As stated above, I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 was preferred by one of the purchasers of the land, in question, namely, Amarendra Kumar Sahay (respondent no.4 in this L.P.A.) for joining him as party respondent in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008, because he had an interest in the land, in question. This I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 and the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3406 of nd 2008, preferred by this appellant, was dismissed vide order dated November, 2012, mainly on the ground that Urban Land Ceiling proceedings stood abated in view of Section 3 & 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the orders viz. Order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 1179 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008 dated 2nd November, 2012 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008 dated 2nd November, 2012, the holder of land, in question-writ petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012. The writ petition preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, being W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 was also disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th February, 2012, referring Sections 3 & 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999. Aggrieved with the observations, made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004, the original respondent no.6 of W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 has preferred L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012. Both these appeals have been heard together and with consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Both these appeals have been heard together and with consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for holder of the land-the appellant : It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant: that this appellant, who is holder of the land, initially purchased the land, in question, by registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1974 from the predecessor-in-title Smt. Gauri Rani Devi. Thereafter, ULC Act, 1976 came into force with effect from 17th February, 1976 (in the erstwhile State of Bihar with effect from 1st April, 1976) and, therefore, necessary form was filled up, declaring the holding of the land under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976 by this appellant. Meanwhile, Power of Attorney was also given in the month of May, 1982 to one Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay, who sold away the land to his wife, sons and daughters through two different registered sale deed; one dated 17th June, 1982 and another dated 2nd September, 1982, without any notice to the competent authority under Section 26 of the ULC Act, 1976 and in utter violation of Section 27 of the ULC Act, 1976. Illegally these documents were also registered in violation of Section 28 of the ULC Act, 1976. These sale deeds were null and void in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the ULC Act, 1976. that the holder of the land, in question i.e. this appellant challenged the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, declaring the entire land as an excess vacant land by way of ULC Appeal No. 50 of 1988. Ultimately, the matter was remanded by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribag, and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, gave one unit to the holder of the land i.e. 1500 Sq. Mts. of the land and rest of it i.e. 5014 Sq. Mts. of the land was declared as an excess vacant land. that for the aforesaid land, a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 was also issued by the Government on 4th June, 1988, but, neither any notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued nor any notification under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued. that for the aforesaid land, a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976 was also issued by the Government on 4th June, 1988, but, neither any notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued nor any notification under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was issued. Thus, neither the excess vacant land was acquired by the Government nor possession of the same was ever taken over by the Government, in the eyes of law. Ultimately the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 was enacted by the Parliament. In view of Sections 3 & 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 if possession of the excess vacant land was not taken over by the Government, it will remain with the holder of the land and, therefore, W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008 was preferred by the holder of the land-appellant herein, but, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that possession of the land, in question, was never taken over by the Government and hence, rest of the land i.e. 5014 Sq. Mts. of land, which was declared to be the excess vacant land by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, can also be retained by the holder of the land and, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred bearing L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the holder of the land-appellant has placed heavy reliance upon Section 5(3), 10(1), 10(3) and 10(6) to be read with Section 30(5) and 42 of the ULC Act, 1976 as well as a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., as reported in (2010)10 SCC 677 , especially paragraph nos. 16, 21 and 23 thereof. that the purchasers of the land, in question, ought not to have been heard by any of the authorities competent under the ULC Act, 1976 much less by this Court, because the said transfer of the land is absolutely null and void, in teeth of Sections 26, 27 and 28 to be read with Section 5(3) of the ULC Act, 1976. The purchasers of the land, in question, have no locus standi at all. The purchasers of the land, in question, have no locus standi at all. that the effect of Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 i.e. abatement of ULC proceedings always goes in favour of holder of the land, if the possession of the excess vacant land is not taken over by the Government. that unauthorized possession of the purchasers of the land can be removed under Section 30 of the ULC Act, 1976. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judges while disposing of both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 and W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008. Consequential effect regarding the abatement of ULC proceedings under Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 entitles the appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals to enjoy the land, in question, and hence, to the aforesaid extent the orders, passed by the learned Single Judges in both the writ petitions deserve to be quashed and set aside and the appellant may be allowed to retain the excess vacant land i.e. 5014 Sq. Mts., because out of total holding of land ad-measuring 6514 Sq. Mts., already one unit was given to the holder of the land i.e. 1500 Sq. Mts. The holder of the land is entering into this litigation for 5014 Sq. Mts. of land, in view of Sections 3 & 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 and hence, both the Letters Patent Appeals may be allowed by this Court. 5. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the purchasers of the land (respondent nos. 4 to 10 in LPA No. 515 of 2012): Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 and respondent no.4 in L.P.A. 495 of 2012 has submitted: that they are purchasers of the land, in question, by two different registered sale deeds dated 17th June, 1982 as well as 2nd September, 1982, on account of prior “agreement to sale” dated 25th May, 1982. Moreover, these purchasers of the land, in question, had also preferred Urban Land Ceiling Appeal No. 56 of 1988 before the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 8th March, 1988. Thereafter, the matter was remanded and again the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, passed an order dated 31st December, 1995, giving one unit = 1500 Sq. Mts. Thereafter, the matter was remanded and again the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, passed an order dated 31st December, 1995, giving one unit = 1500 Sq. Mts. to the holder of the land and declaring 5014 Sq. Mts. of land as an excess vacant land. This order was challenged by the purchasers of the land, in question, because they were vitally interested being the purchasers of the land, in question. The appeal preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, being Urban Land Ceiling Case No. 25 of 1996, as stated herein above, was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh, and then a writ petition was preferred before this Court. Thereafter, the matter was remanded and order was passed and lastly an order was passed by the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh, on 11th February, 2004 dismissing the Urban Land Ceiling Appeal No. 25 of 1996, preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, which was challenged by the purchasers of the land along with the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated st December, 1995 by way of writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004. This writ petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th February, 2012, because of abatement of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings under Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999. that already Title Suit No. 190 of 1987, instituted by the appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals, was dismissed by the Sub Judge-I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. Another Title Suit No. 136 of 2012, instituted by this appellant, was also dismissed, as withdrawn vide order dated 26th November, 2012 and hence, no relief especially giving possession of 5014 Sq. Mts. of land, may be granted by this Court to the appellant, because this land is in possession of respondent nos. 4 to 10 of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012. It is also submitted that, in fact, not only this excess vacant land ad-measuring 5014 Sq. Mts. is in possession of respondent nos. 4 to 10, but, even one unit = 1500 Sq. Mts., which has been given to this appellant by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 31st December, 1995, is also in possession of respondent nos. It is also submitted that, in fact, not only this excess vacant land ad-measuring 5014 Sq. Mts. is in possession of respondent nos. 4 to 10, but, even one unit = 1500 Sq. Mts., which has been given to this appellant by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 31st December, 1995, is also in possession of respondent nos. 4 to 10, who are purchasers of the land, in question, and hence no relief may be granted by this Court to the appellant and both the Letters Patent Appeals may be dismissed. that the land, in question, was an agricultural land and, therefore, it is neither an urban land nor a vacant land under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976. that learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, as reported in 2013(2) J.B.C.J. 386 (SC), especially paragraph nos. 16, 26, 27 and 39 thereof. Further reliance has been placed on a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabinath, as reported in 2015 (2) Supreme 459 , especially paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 thereof. 6. REASONS : Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals to retain the entire land (i.e. 1500 Sq. Mts. + 5014 Sq. Mts. = 6514 Sq. Mts. of land) and to continue in possession of the same, which has been declared excess vacant land under the ULC Act, 1976, as the holder of the land, mainly for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) In this Country lot of litigations have been injected by the purchasers of the land, in contravention of ULC Act, 1976 i.e. in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 to be read with Section 5(3) of the ULC Act, 1976. These two Letters Patent Appeals are not the exception to this general phenomena ; (ii) In the teeth of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of ULC Act, 1976, the land, in question, was purchased by respondent nos. These two Letters Patent Appeals are not the exception to this general phenomena ; (ii) In the teeth of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of ULC Act, 1976, the land, in question, was purchased by respondent nos. 4 to 10 of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 by two registered sale deeds dated 17th June, 1982 and 2nd September, 1982 i.e. after the ULC Act, 1976 came into force and in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 i.e. without taking permission of the competent authority under the ULC Act, 1976; (iii) Every now and then these type of purchasers of the land/ property are instituting ULC proceedings or writ petitions and are creating chaos in smooth flawing and applicability of ULC Act, 1976; (iv) Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 are more observed than in breach by the purchasers of the land. They are always trying to create confusion in the court and Tribunal. Present purchasers (respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012) are also falling in this category. (v) The appellant became holder of the land and owner of the land ad-measuring 1.61 Acres, pertaining to Khata No. 60, Plot Nos. 2476, 2477, 2478, 2479, 2480, 2482 & 2483, situated at Mauza-Hirapur, Dhanbad, from the predecessor-in-title, namely, Smt. Gauri Rani Devi, vide registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1974 (i.e. prior to announcement of the ULC Act, 1976). (vi) Thereafter, Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was enacted by the Parliament and was brought into force in rest of the country with effect from 17th February, 1976 whereas, in the erstwhile State of Bihar, with effect from 1st April, 1976. (vii) Holder of the land filled up the form, as required under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, declaring the total holding of the land. The proceedings never come to an end immediately. Since aegis, land is always the cause of civil disputes as well as criminal offences. ULC proceedings continued for several years, as stated in the preceding paragraphs under the heading “Factual Matrix”. Meanwhile, Power of Attorney was executed by the holder of the land dated 25th May, 1982 in favour of one Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay. Agreement to sale was also entered into on the same date with the wife of the Power of Attorney holder. Meanwhile, Power of Attorney was executed by the holder of the land dated 25th May, 1982 in favour of one Sri Awadh Kishore Sahay. Agreement to sale was also entered into on the same date with the wife of the Power of Attorney holder. Thereafter, this Power of Attorney holder sold away the land to his own wife, sons and daughters by two different registered sale deeds dated 17th June, 1982 and 2nd September, 1982. (viii) These two sale deeds are the bone of contentions, rightly or wrongly by the purchasers, who are respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012. Lot of litigations have been entered into, because of this illegality. One illegal act and lot of litigations to convert the illegal action into a legal one. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, declared the entire land as an excess vacant land vide his order date 8th March, 1988, which was rightly challenged by the holder of the land-appellant by preferring ULC Appeal No. 50 of 1988 under Section 33 of the ULC Act, 1976. (ix) Now the illegal purchasers of the land, in question, who have purchased the land in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976, to maintain their say, also preferred ULC Appeal No. 56 of 1988 before the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh, who remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide order dated 9th April, 1990; (x) The illegal purchasers of the land, in question, have remained successful to this effect, in creating confusion. In fact, the Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh, ought to have dismissed the appeal, preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, as their purchase itself was null and void, because of violation of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 to be read with Section 5(3) thereof; (xi) Sometime this type of illegal purchasers of the land become successful to some extent. They were also singing the same tune to that of original holder of the land, as if they are successor-in-title. In fact, respondent nos. 4 to 10 of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 are never the successor-in-title, because their purchase of the land was in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976. In fact, these purchasers have no locus standi to prefer ULC Appeal No. 56 of 1988. In fact, respondent nos. 4 to 10 of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 are never the successor-in-title, because their purchase of the land was in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976. In fact, these purchasers have no locus standi to prefer ULC Appeal No. 56 of 1988. (xii) After remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed a fresh order on st December, 1995 and this time, out of the entire excess vacant land, one unit was given to the holder of the land, which is equal to 1500 Sq. Mts. whereas, the land ad-measuring 5014 Sq. Mts. was declared as excess vacant land, out of total holding of 6514 Sq. Mts. (xiii) The holder of the land i.e. the appellant had not challenged at all this order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad dated 31st December, 1995 and perhaps kept waiting. Possession of the said excess vacant land was never taken over by the Government. No notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 was ever published much less possession of the excess vacant land was never taken over by the Government under Subsection (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976. For ready reference, relevant part of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 is being reproduced hereunder: “10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.- xxx xxx xxx (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may, by notification published 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. xxx xxx xxx (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.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of aforesaid Sub-section (3) to be read with Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976, notification under this Sub-section (3) and Panchanama under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of ULC Act, 1976 are must for taking over the possession of the excess vacant land. If this notification has not been published under Sub-section (3) and Panchanama under Subsection (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 is not drawn, the possession shall be deemed to have been with the holder of the land. (xiv) The aforesaid possession, which is in favour of the holder of the land, cannot be even taken over by the illegal purchasers of the land, who are respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012. For ready reference, Sections 26, 27 and 28 to be read with Section 5 of the ULC Act, 1976 are being reproduced hereunder: “26. Notice to be given before transfer of vacant land.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent authority. Notice to be given before transfer of vacant land.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent authority. (2) Where a notice given under sub-section (1) is for the transfer of the land by way of sale, the competent authority shall have the first option to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government at a price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or of any other corresponding law for the time being in force and if such option is not exercised within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice, it shall be presumed that the competent authority has no intention to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like: Provided that where the competent authority exercises within the period aforesaid the option to purchase such land the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price thereof shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. (3) For the purpose of calculating the price of any vacant land under sub-section (2), it shall be deemed that a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or under the relevant provision of any other corresponding law for the time being in force, had been issued for the acquisition of such vacant land on the date on which the notice was given under sub-section (1) of this section. 27. 27. Prohibition on transfer of urban property.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provision of sub-section (3) of section 5 and sub-section (4) of section 10, no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease for a period exceeding ten years, or otherwise, any urban or urbanisable land with a building (whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act) or a portion only of such building for a period of ten years of such commencement or from the date on which the building is constructed, whichever is later, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. (2) Any person desiring to make a transfer referred to in subsection (1), may make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the competent authority may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, by order in writing grant or refuse to grant the permission applied for: Provided that the competent authority shall not refuse to grant the permission applied for unless it has recorded in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of the same has been communicated to the applicant. (4) Where within a period of sixty days of the date of receipt of an application under this section the competent authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the competent authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. (4) Where within a period of sixty days of the date of receipt of an application under this section the competent authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the competent authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. (5)(a) Where the permission applied for is for the transfer of the land with the building or, as the case may be, a portion only of such building referred to in sub-section (1) by way of sale, and the competent authority is of the opinion that such permission may be granted, then, the competent authority shall have the first option to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building on behalf of the State Government at such price as may be agreed upon between the competent authority and the applicant or, in a case where there is no such agreement, at such price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or of any other corresponding law for the time being in force. (b) If the option referred to in clause (a) is not exercised within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application under this section, it shall be presumed that the competent authority has no intention to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like: Provided that where the competent authority exercises within the period aforesaid the option to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building, the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price thereof shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. (6) For the purpose of calculating the price of the land and building or, as the case may be, a portion only of such building under clause (a) of sub-section (5), it shall be deemed that a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or under the relevant provision of any other corresponding law for the time being in force, had been issued for the acquisition of that land building or, as the case may be, a portion only of such building on the date on which the application was made under sub-section (2). 28. Regulation of registration of document in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), purports to transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or any building (including any portion thereof),- (a) in the case of any transfer referred to in section 26, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer evidence to show that he has give notice of the intended transfer to the competent authority under that section and, where such transfer is by way of sale, the period of sixty days referred to in sub-section (2) of that section has elapsed; (b) in the case of any transfer referred to in section 27, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document unless the transferor produces before such registering officer the permission in writing of the competent authority for such transfer or satisfies the registering officer that the period of sixty days referred to in sub-section (4) of that section has elapsed.” 5. Transfer of vacant land.-(1) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, where any person who had held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act has transferred such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the extent of the land so transferred shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person and the excess vacant land in relation to such person shall, for the purpose of this Chapter, be selected out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer and in case the entire excess vacant land cannot be so selected, the balance, or where no vacant land is held by him after the transfer, the entire excess vacant land, shall be selected out of the vacant land held by the transferee: Provided that where such person has transferred his vacant land to more than one person, the balance, or, as the case may be, the entire excess vacant land aforesaid, shall be selected out of the vacant land, held by each of the transferees in the same proportion as the area of the vacant land transferred to him bears to the total area of the land transferred to all the transferees. (2) Where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under sub-section(1), the transfer of the excess vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. (3) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance and in any State which adopts this Act under clause (1) of article 252 of the Constitution, no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this Act shall transfer any such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until he has furnished a statement under section 6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section(1) of section 10; and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void. (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid provisions, if any property is purchased either by way of sale, transfer, mortgage, lease etc., without giving any notice under Section 26 of the ULC Act. 1976 to the competent authority and also without taking permission of the competent authority under Section 27 of the Act, 1976, such type of transfer, including sale, is prohibited under the ULC Act, 1976. Moreover, even if the sale deed is reduced in writing, the same cannot be even registered, as prohibited under Section 28 of the ULC Act, 1976. Thus, in view of the aforesaid Sections, if any transfer is made of the land, for which the holder of the land has already filled up the form under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, it is prohibited and the same is null and void and, therefore, respondent nos. 4 to 10 has no locus standi to initiate any proceeding under the ULC Act, 1976. Their possession of the land, which is purchased illegally, even if it is with these type of purchasers, has got no value in the eyes of law. The law will never take cognizance of possession of the land, which is purchased in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 and, therefore, the possession of the excess vacant land, in absence of notifications under Sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976, in the eyes of law, will remain with the holder of the land, who is appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals. (xv) Once this Court has come to the conclusion that the possession of the excess vacant land was never taken over by the Government and is never to be said with the illegal purchasers of the land (respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012), the only party left out with the possession of the land is the holder of the land, who is the appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals. (xvi) Thus, neither the Government nor the illegal purchasers of the land, in question, can claim any right, title or interest upon the excess vacant land, which is 5014 Sq. Mts. of land. (xvi) Thus, neither the Government nor the illegal purchasers of the land, in question, can claim any right, title or interest upon the excess vacant land, which is 5014 Sq. Mts. of land. In fact, by virtue of the effect of Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, we hereby permit the appellant to hold the land, in question, as he was holding the same, prior to commencement of ULC Act, 1976. (xvii) Learned counsel for the purchasers of the land, in question, has argued that even one unit equal to 1500 Sq. Mts. of land, which is given by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in favour of the holder of the land, was also purchased by respondent nos. 4 to 10 of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 and they are in possession of the said land also and, therefore, at least, that land should be allowed to be retained by the purchasers. This argument is also not accepted by this Court for the reasons that these purchasers have purchased the land, including one unit, which is equal to 1500 Sq. Mts. of land, by two registered sale deeds dated 17th June, 1982 and 2nd September, 1982, much before the final order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, dated 31st December, 1995. Thus, as on the date of purchase of the land by respondent nos. 4 to 10 of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012, the whole purchase by both the registered sale deeds, including possession of the same, has got no value in the eyes of law. Both sale as well as possession ( if any claimed by the purchasers) are illegal being null and void, of which no cognizance will be taken in the eyes of law and they will be treated as if there is nothing like sale in favour of the purchasers and no possession has been moved from the holder of the land to the purchasers of the land and, hence, no question of retention of at least one unit of land by the purchasers, whatsoever arises. (xviii) Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the purchasers of the land, in question, about Title Suit No. 190 of 1987, instituted by the holder of the land, and dismissal thereof by the Sub Judge-I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. (xviii) Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the purchasers of the land, in question, about Title Suit No. 190 of 1987, instituted by the holder of the land, and dismissal thereof by the Sub Judge-I, Dhanbad vide order dated 29th November, 2007. It makes no difference even if this appellant had filed Title Suit No. 190 of 1987 before any civil court. When Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force, several confusions were there in the mind of the holder of the land. The aforesaid Title Suit is an outcome of the confused holder of the land. In fact, Section 30(5) to be read with Section 42 of the ULC Act, 1976 prohibits such type of civil litigation. ULC Act, 1976 has overriding effect. In fact, against the dismissal of this Title Suit again these purchasers of the land, in question, in two groups filed two different Title Appeals bearing Title Appeal No. 3 of 2008 and Title Appeal No. 14 of 2008, which were dismissed by the appellate forum vide order dated 28th April, 2008. One wrong purchase and several litigations. (xix) The purchasers of the land, in question, have filed several writ petitions before this Court bearing; (a) C.W.J.C. No. 889 of 1996(R); (b) C.W.J.C. No. 2078 of 1996(R); (c) C.W.J.C. No. 545 of 2000(R) & (d) W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 Ultimately W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th February, 2012, observing therein, that looking to the effect of Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999, this writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 is hereby disposed of. As no consequential relief was given of Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 to the holder of the land, L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 has been preferred by the holder of the land to get the benefit of Sections 3 & 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 and, as stated herein above, possession of the land was never taken over by the Government, because neither any notification was issued under Section 10(3) nor under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976 nor this Court is taking any cognizance of the sale deeds in favour of the purchasers of the land, in question, who are respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012 and as this Court is also not taking any cognizance of the illegal possession, the only left out party, who is in possession of the land, in the eyes of law, is the holder of the land i.e. the appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals and hence, he is entitled to retain the land, which has been declared excess vacant land under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976 by the authority. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judges while disposing of both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008 as well as W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 204. The appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals is entitled to retain the land, which has been declared excess vacant land under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, in the manner in which he was holding, prior to commencement of ULC Act, 1976. (xx) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., as reported in (2010)10 SCC 677 , especially at paragraph nos. 16, 21 and 23 has held as under: “16. The aforesaid conclusion leads us further to the question as to whether the appellants have any justifiable cause to approach the court. Firstly, no proceedings had ever been initiated against the appellants by the authorities under the 1976 Act. Secondly, the State authorities, the respondent herein, failed miserably to perform their statutory duties and it appears that they could not muster the courage to take the actual physical possession of the land in dispute in spite of issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act in the year 1993. More so, the so-called authorities could issue notices under Section 10 of the 1976 Act after a lapse of twelve years as the assessment of surplus land became final in 1981 itself. More so, the so-called authorities could issue notices under Section 10 of the 1976 Act after a lapse of twelve years as the assessment of surplus land became final in 1981 itself. Such an indifferent attitude on the part of the authorities is not commendable rather it is condemnable, but that does not mean that the court should decide only the effect of the repealing 1999 Act in these proceedings at the behest of the appellants in the absence of the original tenure-holders and subsequent transferees inasmuch as in the fact situation of this case where the appellants, for the reasons best known to them, did not consider it proper to place either of the sale deeds on record. xxx xxx xxx 21. 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 20-4-1982 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. xxx xxx xxx 23. The sale deed in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti dated 20-4-1982 is not on record. There is nothing to establish whether the sale deed was a genuine, forged or fabricated document. Merely making a statement that it was a registered sale deed and, therefore, it was genuine, cannot be accepted. There is no such presumption in law. There is nothing to ascertain who had been the transferors and who were the transferees therein. None of the subsequent sale deeds is on record. Therefore, the genuineness of either of the alleged sale deeds can be tested. There is no such presumption in law. There is nothing to ascertain who had been the transferors and who were the transferees therein. None of the subsequent sale deeds is on record. Therefore, the genuineness of either of the alleged sale deeds can be tested. There are no pleadings as under what circumstances the sale deeds have been executed and as to whether the original tenure-holders have received any consideration.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, even if any person is purchasing the property after commencement of ULC Act, 1976, without giving any notice to the competent authority under Section 26 and without taking permission of the competent authority, the said purchase is prohibited under Section 27 of the ULC Act, 1976 and no such sale deed can be registered by the registering authority, as there is further prohibition under Section 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 and such purchase of the property is null and void. (xxi) In the facts of the present case also, after coming into force the ULC Act, 1976 and after filling up the form under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, the purchasers have purchased the land, in question, in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 and hence, their purchase has got no value in the eyes of law. The Court will never take cognizance of such sale nor the Court will take cognizance of possession, if any, with such illegal purchasers. (xxii) Such type of illegal purchasers, who are respondent nos. 4 to 10 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2012, have filed the following unnecessary litigations either in Tribunal or in Courts: (1) ULC Appeal No. 56 of 1988 before Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh; (2) ULC Appeal No. 25 of 1996 before Commissioner, Chhotanagpur North Division, Hazaribagh; (3) C.W.J.C. No. 889 of 1996(R) before Ranchi Bench of the then Hon'ble Patna High Court; (4) C.W.J.C. No.2078 of 1996(R) before Ranchi Bench of the then Hon'ble Patna High Court; (5) C.W.J.C. No. 545 of 2000(R) before Ranchi Bench of the then Hon'ble Patna High Court; (6) W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2004 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; (7) I.A. No. 1179 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 3406 of 2008 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. (8) Title Appeal No. 3 of 2008 before the District Judge, Dhanbad and (9) Title Appeal No. 14 of 2008 before the District Judge, Dhanbad. The aforesaid nine litigations have been preferred by the purchasers of the land, in question, whose purchase of land is null and void and in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 to be read with Section 5(3) thereof. (xxiii) This type of purchasers of the land, in breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976, have always inflated the figure of pending cases, in the court, unnecessarily. They are always taking chance in the court or Tribunal. They are always creating confusion in the court or tribunal. The law, namely, ULC Act, 1976 is unambiguous and unequivocal. More are the unnecessarily litigations and several are the orders to be passed by the adjudicating authorities and always such type of purchasers are picking up one or two 'straw type sentences' and are arguing their cases, for the years together, in the courts. In fact, their sale deeds, in breach of the provisions of ULC Act, 1976, are not useful to them, because such purchase is prohibited. If we look to the provisions of ULC Act, 1976, very closely, the transfer of land prior to one year of the commencement of ULC Act, 1976, i.e. from 17th February, 1975, has been brought into the close scrutiny of the competent authority under sub-section (4) of Section 4 of ULC Act, 1976. The facts of the present case, is the worst the situation. After commencement of ULC Act, 1976, i.e. from 17th February, 1976, the transfer of the land is prohibited. Thus, respondent Nos.4 to 10 are not even successor-in-title, nor they are in possession of the land by virtue of those two sale-deeds which are referred herein above dated 17th June, 1982 as well as 2nd September, 1982. The law is never taking any cognizance of such type of sale-deeds, much less the possession followed after the aforesaid illegal sale. (xxiv) These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judges while disposing of W.P. (C) No.3406 of 2008 vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 as well as W.P. (C) No.2160 of 2004 vide order dated 9th February, 2012. (xxiv) These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judges while disposing of W.P. (C) No.3406 of 2008 vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 as well as W.P. (C) No.2160 of 2004 vide order dated 9th February, 2012. The consequence of Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 permits the holder of the land–appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals to continue to hold the land, which has been declared excess vacant land under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, as he was holding prior to commencement of the ULC Act, 1976. (xxv) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10 in L.P.A. No.515 of 2012 submitted that the land which has been declared as an excess vacant land under section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, is not urban land, because, in fact, it is an agricultural land and, therefore, the purchasers of the land should be allowed to retain the land in question. This attractive contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that; (1) Declaration of the land under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976 by the holder of the land is not a final one. He may narrate the said land as an agricultural land, but, it depends upon the final order to be passed by the competent authority; (2) As narrated herein above, there is a long drawn proceedings between the parties, namely, the holder of the land and the competent authority. Therefore, whether the land, which has been declared excess vacant land under section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, is an urban land or an agricultural land continues to be in belligerent state, which was never settled. (3) Before the final possession is being taken over by the Government under sub-section (6) of section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976, the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, which protects the possession of the land. (4) As stated herein above, the Government was not in possession of the land. Purchasers of the land had illegally purchased the land and therefore, even if they had possession, their possession has no value in the eyes of law and, hence, the only left out party of the land in question is the holder of the land. (4) As stated herein above, the Government was not in possession of the land. Purchasers of the land had illegally purchased the land and therefore, even if they had possession, their possession has no value in the eyes of law and, hence, the only left out party of the land in question is the holder of the land. What is saved by Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 in the facts of the present case, is the possession of the holder of the land, in question. It may be agricultural land or it may be urban land, we are not concerned at this stage with the same. But, the fact remains that before this dispute is being crystallized finally and before the possession is taken over, the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 came into force and Sections 3 and 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 permit the holder of the land to continue with the possession and, therefore, we are not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the purchasers of the land, in question, that if it is an agricultural land then the sale-deeds is legal. In the eyes of law, in fact, the sale-deeds were in utter breach of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the ULC Act, 1976 and hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the purchasers of the land is not accepted by this Court. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we, hereby, modify the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 3406 of 2008 dated 2nd November, 2012 as well as the order passed in I.A. No.1179 of 2010 preferred therein as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9th February, 2012 in W.P. (C) No.2160 of 2004 and, we, hereby, permit the appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals to continue to hold the land declared under Section 6 of the ULC Act, 1976, as he was holding prior to commencement of the ULC Act, 1976. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent, but, without any order as to costs.