JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing order dated 21.6.1993 (Annexure 4 to writ petition) whereby competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1976’) has rejected petitioner’s objection for exempting petitioner’s disputed land declared surplus under Act 1976. 3. It appears that proceedings to find out surplus land of petitioner were initiated under Act 1976 and 35980.53 sq. metre of land was declared surplus vide order dated 16.5.1979 passed by competent authority. 4. Petitioner filed Appeal No. 60 of 1979 under Section 33 of Act 1976 which was dismissed on 22.9.1981 and thereafter petitioner’s Writ Petition No. 14219 of 1981 was also dismissed on 8.9.1983. 5. District Magistrate, Meerut, it is said took possession of surplus land on 7.12.1987. Petitioner claims that in the meantime it had filed an application under Section 20 (1) of Act 1976 for exemption of land on the ground that even house and land appurtenant thereto was included and only 1500 sq. metres of land was allowed to be possessed by petitioner. Application is said to have been filed on 2.1.1986. It is this application which has been dismissed by competent authority vide impugned order dated 21.6.1986. 5. Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner, however contended that in view of enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1999’) entire land of petitioner is now available to him and no part thereof can be treated to be vacant for the reason that actual possession of entire land is still with petitioner and it has not been taken by respondents. He submitted that competent authority in the impugned order has said that possession has been taken on 7.12.1987 but the same was only a paper transaction. The law required that actual possession if, not taken by authorities under Act 1976, land shall not be treated to be vacant and after Act 1999, such land cannot be taken away from petitioner. 6. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that possession of land declared surplus, i.e. 35980.53 sq. The law required that actual possession if, not taken by authorities under Act 1976, land shall not be treated to be vacant and after Act 1999, such land cannot be taken away from petitioner. 6. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that possession of land declared surplus, i.e. 35980.53 sq. metre, was taken on 7.12.1987 by State and thereafter it was transferred to Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘MDA’) on 27.6.1989 and since then MDA is in actual possession of surplus land of petitioner. Possession order dated 27.6.1989 whereby possession was transferred to MDA has been filed alongwith counter-affidavit. Another possession memo dated 7.12.1987 which is duly signed by Revenue Officials as well as certain witnesses has also been filed alongwith counter-affidavit showing possession of land with following description, was taken by Revenue Authorities on 7.12.1987 in presence of several witnesses whose signatures are also contained in the said document. uke xzke uke O;fDr [kljk ua {ks=Qy jSluk Jherh fo|korh 77 10293-844 iRuh Hkxoku 115 9332-748 lgk; 146 v 6696-057 146 c 8657-380 4 34]980-029 7. The documents also state that on the date possession was taken, petitioner was out of station. 8. Sri Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner, state that possession memo does not contain signature of petitioner therefore, it cannot be said to be a valid possession taken by respondents and in any case it is only a paper transaction and cannot be treated to be actual possession taken by respondents. 9. The only question thus raised before this Court is “whether possession of surplus land has been taken by respondents as stated on 7.12.1987 or till the enactment of Act 1999, actual possession has not been taken by respondents and thus, the aforesaid land now cannot be taken away from petitioner.” 10. Learned Standing Counsel, submitted, when a possession memo has been executed in presence of independent witnesses, Courts have held and treated such a document as a valid actual possession taken by State and therefore Section 3 of Act 1999 has no application in the case in hand. 11. Learned Standing Counsel, submitted, when a possession memo has been executed in presence of independent witnesses, Courts have held and treated such a document as a valid actual possession taken by State and therefore Section 3 of Act 1999 has no application in the case in hand. 11. We find that question as to how and in what manner possession of land particularly when it is a large piece of land, can be taken and can be said that actual possession has been taken by State, has come up for consideration, time and again, in various authorities and it will be useful to refer some of such authorities as under : 12. In Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat and others, 1976 (1) SCC 700 . It is a three Judges judgment. The majority view is the opinion expressed by Hon’ble Bhagwati, J for himself and Hon’ble Gupta, J. while contrary view was expressed by Hon’ble Untwalia, J. His Lordship Untwalia, J. observed that taking possession means taking of possession on the spot. It is neither a possession on paper nor symbolical possession. The Act is silent on the point as to what is the mode of taking possession. Unless possession is taken by written agreement of party concerned, the mode of taking possession obviously would be for the authority to go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate that authority has taken possession on land. It may be in the form of declaration by beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a written declaration on the spot. Presence of owner or occupant of land to effectuate taking of possession is not necessary. When possession has been taken, owner or occupant of land is dispossessed. Once possession has been taken land vests in Government. 13. The majority judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bhagwati, J. disagreeing with Hon’ble Untwalia, J. said that when State proceed to take possession of land acquired, it must take actual possession of land since all interests on land are sought to be acquired by it. There can be no question of taking symbolical possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”). Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. There can be no question of taking symbolical possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”). Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. The Court further said: “What the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the Land in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. How such possession may be taken would depend on the nature of the land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rule laying down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. We should not, therefore, be taken as laying down an absolute and inviolable rule that merely going on the ‘pot and making a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land in every case. But here, in our opinion, since the land was laying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tehsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the land for the purpose of determining what part was waste and arable and should, therefore, be taken possession of and determining its extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It appears that the appellant was not present when this was done by the Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or the occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable where possible, to give such notice before possession is taken by the authorities, as that would eliminate the possibility of any fraudulent or collusive transaction of taking of mere paper possession, without the occupant or the owner ever coming to know of it.” (emphasis added) 14. In General Manager, Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan and others, 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 268, it was claimed on behalf of State that possession was taken on 12.4.1976 and handed over to Union of India. In General Manager, Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan and others, 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 268, it was claimed on behalf of State that possession was taken on 12.4.1976 and handed over to Union of India. With regard to mode and manner of possession the Court said: “It is common knowledge that possession would always be taken under a memo and handing over also would be under a memo. It is a recognized usual practice in all the acquisition proceedings.” 15. In State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others, 1996(7) SCC 269 , the Court said: “Possession of the acquired land would be taken only by way of a memorandum, Panchanama, which is a legally accepted norm. It would not be possible to take any physical possession. Therefore, subsequent continuation, if any, had by the erstwhile owner is only illegal or unlawful possession which does not bind the Government nor vested under Section 16 divested in the illegal occupant.” 16. The question as to how physical possession of land is to be taken, then was considered in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab, 1996(4) SCC 212 , wherein the Court said in para 4 of the judgment as under: “4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4-1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession”. (emphasis added) 17. The majority opinion of Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) was considered in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam, 1996 (8) SCC 259 , wherein also a dispute of actual possession was raised. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession”. (emphasis added) 17. The majority opinion of Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) was considered in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam, 1996 (8) SCC 259 , wherein also a dispute of actual possession was raised. The Court relying on memorandum of Panchnama prepared by Land Acquisition Officer for taking possession of acquired land and also the letter written by respondent wherein he admitted title of respondent but sought for allotment of an alternative site, held that there was no question of requesting for alternative site if according to respondents the title still vested in him and has not been vested in the State by taking possession. Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment relevant for our purpose is reproduced as under: “9. It is settled law by series of judgement of this Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or Panchanama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not co-operate in taking possession of the land. 10. It is seen that in a letter written by the respondent himself, admitting the title of the Board to the land in the said survey number, he sought for allotment of alternative site. In other words, unless possession is taken and he is divested of the title and the same is vested in the appellant, he cannot make request to the appellant for providing him alternative site. It is not his case that at that stage he was still continuing to have title to the land in dispute. The admission is inconsistent with and incongruous to his interest. He was also aware that award was made and the possession obviously should have been taken thereunder.......” 18. The next authority is Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujrat and others, 1998 (4) SCC 387 . Therein Court referred to Panchnama prepared by Deputy Collector showing that possession was taken and found it sufficient to hold that possession of land in question in that case was taken as contemplated under Act, 1894. 19. The next authority is Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujrat and others, 1998 (4) SCC 387 . Therein Court referred to Panchnama prepared by Deputy Collector showing that possession was taken and found it sufficient to hold that possession of land in question in that case was taken as contemplated under Act, 1894. 19. In P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka, 2005(12) SCC 489 , Court referred to the observations of Hon’ble Bhagwati, J. in Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) and said, when there is no crop or structure on the land only symbolic possession would be taken. 20. In Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi v. Lt. Governor, Government of N.C.T. Delhi and others, 2009(10) SCC 501 , Court after referring earlier decisions said that while taking possession, symbolic and notional possession is not envisaged under the Act but the manner in which possession is taken must of necessity depend upon the facts of each case. Where a large area of land with a large number of owners is subject-matter of possession, Court said, that, it would be impossible for Collector or Revenue officials to enter each bigha or biswa and take possession thereof. Pragmatic approach has to be adopted by Court. It further said: “...one of the methods of taking possession and handing it over to the beneficiary department is the recording of a Panchnama which can in itself constitute evidence of the fact that possession had been taken and the land had vested absolutely in the Government.” 21. Similarly in Brij Pal Bhargava and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(5) SCC 413 , accepting possession Court upheld the issue of possession on the basis of possession receipts and said that mere fact that in revenue record there is no mutation or that erstwhile owner actually is still occupying acquired land would make no difference. 22. After having a retrospect of earlier authorities, in Banda Development Authority, Bana v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(5) SCC 394 , Court crystallized certain principles to determine when possession taken would be held to be actual physical possession by authorities and it reads as under: “37. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: (i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: (i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. (ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. (iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken. (iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document. (v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken.” 23. In Jagdish and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(5) ADJ 5 , (a Division Bench judgment of this Court) wherein one of us (Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) was a member, Court referred to an authority letter of Special Land Acquisition Officer containing endorsement of Executive Engineer taking possession. It was held that possession was taken by revenue authorities. 24. In the present case, documentary evidence is available on record to show that on 7.12.1987 Sri Om Pal Singh, Land Inspector, as representative of Collector, actually visited the site alongwith Lekhpal, and in presence of witnesses, took possession of surplus land of petitioner measuring 35980.53 sq. It was held that possession was taken by revenue authorities. 24. In the present case, documentary evidence is available on record to show that on 7.12.1987 Sri Om Pal Singh, Land Inspector, as representative of Collector, actually visited the site alongwith Lekhpal, and in presence of witnesses, took possession of surplus land of petitioner measuring 35980.53 sq. metre comprising four khasra numbers detailed therein. Thereafter possession of said land was transferred to MDA on 27.6.1989. 25. Sri Sahai submitted that possession was not taken in presence of petitioner but as noted above, presence of owner of land is not necessary. Therefore, for that reason alone, the documents showing possession taken by respondents cannot be held to be invalid, particularly when document clearly shows, when possession was taken, petitioner was not present but was out of station. This fact has not been disputed at all. This fact mentioned in the possession memo shows that officials actually visited the site and took possession of land in question. 26. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that possession of surplus land, measuring 34980.03 sq. maters, which was so declared vide order dated 16.5.1979, has been taken on 7.12.1987 by respondents, hence contention of petitioner that land is in her possession and after promulgation of Act, 1999, now land is not vacant and cannot be taken by State is thoroughly misconceived and rejected. 27. No other argument has been advanced. In view of above discussion, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ——————