Authority. Need for using force to dispossess a person in possession should ordinarily arise only if the person concerned refuses to cooperate and surrender or deliver possession of land in question and that is the rationale behind Section 10(5) and 10(6) of Act, 1976. Having said so, Court said, that what would be position if for any reason Competent Authority or Government or Authorized Officer resorts to forcible dispossession of erstwhile owner even without exploring possibility of a voluntary surrender or delivery of such possession on demand. If a person is dispossessed without any notice under Section 10(5), he could have made a grievance based on Section 10(5), and seeks restoration of possession to him, no matter he could have upon such restoration be liable to be evicted under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 upon his failure to deliver or surrender such possession. However, in reality, unless there was something that was inherently wrong so as to attract the process of taking over such possession, as the identity of land or boundaries thereof or any other similar nature going to root of the matter, requiring an adjudication, a person, who had lost his land by reason of same being declared surplus under Section 10(3), would not consider it worthwhile to agitate violation of Section 10(5) for he can well understand that even when Court may uphold his contention that procedure ought to be followed as prescribed, it may still be not enough for him to retain land for the authorities could the very next day, dispossess him from the same by simply serving a notice under Section 10(5). Court said in this backdrop, “It would, in that view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him.”
