STATE OF U.P v. HARi RAM

1.5 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 C excess of the ceiling limit thereby to regulate construction on such lands, to prevent concentration of urban lands in hands of few persons, so as to bring about equitable distribution. For achieving that object, various procedures have to be followed for acquisition and D vesting. Keeping in view the provisions of sub-ss. (5) and (6) of s. 10, the words 'acquired' and 'vested' have different meaning and content. [para 27] [322-D-G]

1.6 Under s. 10(3), what is vested Is de jure E possession not de facto. The 'vesting' in sub-s. (3) of s.10 means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-s. (3) of s.10 can be F voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided u/s 11 of the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-s. (5) of s. 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Sub-s. (5) of s.10 visualizes a situation of G surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-s. (6) of s.10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession. Requirement of giving notice under sub· ss. (5) and (6) of s. 10 is mandatory. Though the word 'may' has been used therein, the word 'may' in both the H STATE OF U.P. v. HARi RAM 305 sub-sections has to be understood as "shall" because a 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-s. (5) or sub-s. (6) of s. 1 O is that it might result the land B holder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word 'may' has to be read as 'shall'. [para 27, 28, 32 and 34) [322-G; 323-A-B; 324-F-G; 325-E-F]