ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1976), dated 18.04.2017 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that a property bearing survey Nos.799, 989, 856/3 admeasurig 4850 s.m., 2750 s.m. and 2450 s.m. situated at Village Chilhudih and Survey No. 1079 admeasuring 1210 s.m. situated at Gudhiyar area and survey Nos. 191, 193, 194 situated at Village Kota admeasuring 12790 s.m., 4050 s.m., 3880 s.m. respectively, were purchased by the petitioner when he was minor through natural guardian his mother through registered sale deeds dated 14.03.1966, 30.01.1962, 21.02.1962 and 21.02.1962. A Ceiling Case No.19-A-90(C)(1) year 1984-85 was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act 1976 for having land more than the ceiling limit. The competent authority issued a notice, on 30.01.1986 an enquiry was submitted before the competent authority to the effect that the petitioner was having 38399 s.m. more than the ceiling limit and a draft statement was issued on 05.03.1986. The petitioner filed an objection against the draft statement and thereafter the final order on objection was passed on 22.06.1988 and the alleged vested land was changed from 38399 s.m. to 36399 s.m. Against the said final order, the petitioner raised objection before the competent authority. On the said objection, the competent authority passed an order and changed the alleged vested land from 36399 s.m. to 31980 s.m. and issued the final statement on 18.06.1992. A notification was published under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 in the Madhya Pradesh official gazette on 06.11.1992 and when no objection was raised against the publication, on 28.03.1993 the competent authority prepared notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 for declaration of said land as vested land. On 13.08.1993 the petitioner raised objection before the competent authority against the alleged vesting of petitioner’s land on the ground that the lands proposed to be vested in the State Government are agricultural land and not a vacant land. Upon the said objection, the competent authority held that the alleged vested land is an agriculture land and passed an order that the land belonging to the petitioner is under the ceiling limit and terminated the proceeding of the case on 23.09.1994. Upon the said objection, the competent authority held that the alleged vested land is an agriculture land and passed an order that the land belonging to the petitioner is under the ceiling limit and terminated the proceeding of the case on 23.09.1994. Thereafter, the State Government suo moto exercised the revisional power against the order dated 23.09.1994 and no notice was issued to the petitioner and consequently the final order was passed and order dated 23.09.1994 was set aside vide order dated 03.03.1998. Thereafter, on 16.05.2000 the competent authority without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuance of notice to the petitioner, declared the land of the petitioner as vacant land and order was passed for publication of gazette notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 on the ground that the land has already vested in the Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was never informed about the suo moto proceeding initiated by the State Government and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the order dated 23.09.1994 was set aside vide order dated 03.03.1998. It is also argued that the competent authority without following provision of Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 passed the order for vesting of said property with the State Government. He would further submit that no notification as required under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was published. He would also submit that though in official record of the State Government the property has been shown vested with the State Government, actually the petitioner is in possession of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that with regard to possession of the property in question there is no specific averment. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai would submit that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to raise objection. He would submit that there is specific order for publication of notification in official Govt. gazette under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai would submit that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to raise objection. He would submit that there is specific order for publication of notification in official Govt. gazette under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. As per the return, it appears that the said order was not complied with, but provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 were partly complied with, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. He would further submit that the objection was raised by the petitioner before the competent authority, therefore, it cannot be held that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner was in possession of the excess land than the ceiling, therefore, proceedings were initiated and appropriate orders were passed. He would further submit that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner to prefer appeal under Section 12 of the Act, 1976. He would submit that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 5. From a perusal of the order dated 16.05.2000 it appears that the order was passed by the State Government exercising the revisional power on 03.03.1998. It is further observed that total 31980 s.m. of the land of the petitioner was found in excess of ceiling and notification was issued under the provisions of Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, 1976. It is further stated that the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 was issued in the official gazette on 06.11.1992 as per provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976, but date is not given with regard to issuance of publication of the notification in the official gazette and said place has been left blank. Thus, from the perusal of the order dated 16.05.2000 it is very much vivid that notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was not published in the official gazette. In the return filed by the State with regard to notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 the respondents have conceded to the fact that the competent authority has not published the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 in the official gazette as per the mandatory requirement under the provisions of law. In the return filed by the State with regard to notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 the respondents have conceded to the fact that the competent authority has not published the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 in the official gazette as per the mandatory requirement under the provisions of law. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (supra) in para 17, 30, 36, 37, 41 and 42 held that: 17. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 states that after considering the claims of persons interested in the vacant land, the competent authority has to determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it might deem fit. Subsection (3) of Section 10 states that after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the competent authority has to declare that the excess land referred to in the Notification published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 shall, with effect from such date, as might be prescribed in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government. On publication of a declaration to that effect such land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, with effect from the date so specified. 30. Vacant land, it may be noted, is not actually acquired but deemed to have been acquired, in that deeming things to be what they are not. Acquisition, therefore, does not take possession unless there is an indication to the contrary. It is trite law that in construing a deeming provision, it is necessary to bear in mind the legislative purpose. The purpose of the Act is to impose ceiling on vacant land, for the acquisition of land in excess of the ceiling limit thereby to regulate construction on such lands, to prevent concentration of urban lands in the hands of a few persons, so as to bring about equitable distribution. For achieving that object, various procedures have to be followed for acquisition and vesting. When we look at those words in the above setting and the provisions to follow such as sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10, the words “acquired” and “vested” have different meaning and content. For achieving that object, various procedures have to be followed for acquisition and vesting. When we look at those words in the above setting and the provisions to follow such as sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10, the words “acquired” and “vested” have different meaning and content. Under Section 10(3), what is vested is de jure possession not de facto, for more reasons than one because we are testing the expression on a statutory hypothesis and such an hypothesis can be carried only to the extent necessary to achieve the legislative intent. 36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order under subsection (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) to Section 10 again speaks of “possession” which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose, force - as may be necessary - can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore, contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to comply with the order under sub-section (5), in the event of which the competent authority may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is being resorted only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) to Section 10. Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the situations, i.e. taking possession by giving notice that is “peaceful dispossession” and on failure to surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), than “forceful dispossession” under sub-section (6) of Section 10. 37. Requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word ‘may’ has been used therein, the word ‘may’ in both the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall” because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’. 41. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result the land holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’. 41. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) to Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act 1999 has expressly repealed the Act 33 of 1976. The Object and Reasons of the Repeal Act has already been referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case. 42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.” 7. From the Gazette notification of India dated 22nd March, 1999 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed. Sections 3 and 4 of the repealing Act say as under:- “Savings. 3. From the Gazette notification of India dated 22nd March, 1999 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed. Sections 3 and 4 of the repealing Act say as under:- “Savings. 3. (I) 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 by 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 (I) 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 (I) 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 authorised 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. Abatement of legal proceedings. 4. All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate; Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.” 8. According to Section 3(1), if possession of the land has already been taken over by the State Government the repealing act saves the possession of the State Government. 9. According to Section 3(1), if possession of the land has already been taken over by the State Government the repealing act saves the possession of the State Government. 9. In the present case the order was passed by the State Government on 03.03.1998, but thereafter no notification under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was published in the official Gazette, therefore, the order passed by the State Government is contrary to the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 and the law law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. Therefore, the order passed by the competent authority dated 18.04.2017 is set aside. 10. In the result, the petition stands allowed leaving the parties to bear their cost(s).