Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order dated 24-07-2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority) under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which disposed of the petitioner's appeal as abated following the adoption of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, a developer who purchased surplus vacant land vide registered sale deed dated 10-09-2003 from the original owner Mohd. Samad Mohd. Isaq, also sought a declaration that the proceedings in ULC Case No.17/1997 and the order dated 07-08-2007 passed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority (respondent No.3) cancelling the sale deed under Section 5(3) of the Act of 1976 be held as abated. The original owner had obtained exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act of 1976 on 18-10-2000 for surplus vacant land to develop a housing scheme. After the owner's death, a complaint by one Mohd. Yusuf led to the Competent Authority declaring the sale deed illegal on 07-08-2007. The petitioner's appeal was filed under Section 33, and a stay was granted on 12-10-2007. During pendency, on 29-11-2007, the State adopted the Repeal Act of 1999, prompting the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal as abated on 24-07-2008. The core legal issues were whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction under Section 5(3) after exemption under Section 20(1)(a) and whether the appeal stood abated. The petitioner argued that once exempted, Chapter III restrictions on transfer are lifted; any breach of exemption conditions can only be addressed by the State withdrawing the exemption, not by the Competent Authority. Reliance was placed on T.R. Thandur v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 1643) and other precedents. The respondents contended that the exemption order contained conditions that prohibited the sale and that the Competent Authority's action was justified. The Court heard arguments from senior counsel for both sides and reserved judgment. The matter involved interpretation of the inter-play between exemption and statutory restrictions, and the effect of the Repeal Act on pending proceedings.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Urban Land Ceiling - Exemption Effect on Transfer Restrictions - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Sections 5(3), 20(1)(a) - The Competent Authority cancelled a sale deed executed in 2003 on exempted surplus vacant land, alleging violation of Section 5(3); petitioner contended that once exemption was granted, Chapter III restrictions cease, and only conditions of the exemption order govern transfer - The Court heard arguments that any breach must be addressed by the State Government withdrawing the exemption, not by the Competent Authority under Section 5(3) (Paras 4-8, 11-12)
B) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal of Act - Effect on Pending Proceedings - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, Section 3; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 33 - The Additional Commissioner disposed of the appeal as abated following adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999; petitioner argued that the saving clause in the Repeal Act preserved actions against breach of exemption conditions, making the Competent Authority's order without jurisdiction, and the appeal could not be treated as abated on core validity issues - The Court considered whether the repeal abated all proceedings or only those not covered by the saving clause (Paras 2, 3(e), 10)
C) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Competent Authority - Conditions of Exemption - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Sections 20(1)(a), 5(3) - Exemption order dated 18-10-2000 contained conditions regarding use and transfer of land; petitioner argued that even if there was breach, the Competent Authority could not cancel the sale deed unless the exemption was first withdrawn by the State - The Court heard submissions that the Competent Authority's action was null and void for want of jurisdiction (Paras 5-7, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction under Section 5(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to cancel a sale deed after the land was exempted under Section 20(1)(a); and whether the appeal before the Additional Commissioner abated due to the Repeal Act of 1999, and the proceedings should be declared abated.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Once land is exempted under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
- 1976
- restrictions on transfer under Chapter III are lifted
- Competent Authority cannot exercise power under Section 5(3) after exemption
- breach of conditions of exemption order can only be addressed by State Government
- not Competent Authority
- appeal does not automatically abate if core issues survive
- exemption order binds Competent Authority.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (05) 67
WRIT PETITION NO. 5183 OF 2008
Nitin W. Sambre, Abhay J. Mantri
Citation not available, 2025:BHC-NAG:5145-DB
C.S. Kaptan, P.S. Chawhan, H.S. Puranik, H.D. Marathe, R.L. Khapre, A.S. Mehadia, S.D. Ingole, S.P. Dharmadhikari, R.A. Bhandarkar
Shri Shridhar s/o Shankarrao Hawale
1) State of Maharashtra, 2) Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, 3) Additional Collector & Competent Authority, U.L.C., Nagpur, 4) Shaeen Parveen w/o Mohd. Jafar, 5) Union Bank of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner disposing of the petitioner's appeal as abated and seeking that the proceedings before the Competent Authority and the order cancelling the sale deed be declared abated.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (purchaser of land) sought quashing of the order dated 24-07-2008 and a declaration that ULC Case No.17/1997 and the order dated 07-08-2007 be held as abated, thereby invalidating the cancellation of the sale deed.
Filing Reason
The Competent Authority cancelled the sale deed under Section 5(3) after the land was exempted, and the appeal against that order was disposed of as abated due to the Repeal Act, 1999, leaving the petitioner without a remedy.
Previous Decisions
Competent Authority's order dated 07-08-2007 cancelled the sale deed; Additional Commissioner's order dated 24-07-2008 disposed of the appeal as abated.
Issues
Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction under Section 5(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to cancel a sale deed after the land was exempted under Section 20(1)(a).
Whether the appeal before the Additional Commissioner abated due to the Repeal Act of 1999, and whether the proceedings and the order of the Competent Authority should be held as abated.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that once land is exempted under Section 20(1)(a), Chapter III restrictions on transfer are lifted, and the Competent Authority lacks power under Section 5(3) to cancel a sale deed; any breach of exemption conditions can only be addressed by the State Government withdrawing the exemption.
Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority could not dispose of the appeal as abated because the core issue of jurisdiction and validity of the exemption survived the repeal, and the saving clause under the Repeal Act preserved actions against breach of conditions.
Respondent No.4 (legal heir) argued that the exemption order's conditions prohibited the sale and that the Competent Authority had power to cancel the sale deed under Section 5(3) for breach of those conditions.
Petitioner relied on T.R. Thandur v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 1643), Sitabai Ramchandra Lonkar v. State of Maharashtra (2015(5) Bom.C.R. 310), and Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry v. State of Maharashtra (2014(6) Mh.L.J. 829) to argue that the Competent Authority's action was without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
The petition questions the order dated 24-07-2008, passed in Appeal No.3/ULC/2007-08 by the Additional Commissioner/Appellate Authority, ULC, Nagpur, by which the appeal was disposed of as abated.
The Competent Authority passed an order under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976, declaring 1,500 square meters surplus vacant land as retainable land by the owner.
the entire surplus land admeasuring 26600 square meters was duly exempted under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act of 1976 vide order dated 18-10-2000.
once the land stands exempted under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act of 1976, the restriction on transfer contained in Chapter–III of the principal Act gets lifted, thereafter the only restriction which remains on transfer, if any, is by virtue of the conditions of exemption order and not otherwise.
the order of exemption passed by the Government in respect of excess vacant land.
Section 3 is a saving clause under the Repeal Act of 1999 and in view of the saving clause, the order under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act of 1976 are saved and action, if any, regarding breach of any condition of the exemption order can be taken by the State Government to revoke, modify or relax any such condition; that being so, passing of the order by respondent No.3 Competent Authority is without jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Original owner Mohd. Samad Mohd. Isaq applied for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) in ULC Case No.17/1997. Exemption order granted on 18-10-2000. Petitioner purchased land via registered sale deed dated 10-09-2003. After owner's death, one Mohd. Yusuf filed complaint on 07-06-2007. Competent Authority passed order dated 07-08-2007 cancelling sale deed under Section 5(3). Petitioner filed appeal under Section 33 and obtained stay on 12-10-2007. State adopted Repeal Act on 29-11-2007. Additional Commissioner disposed of appeal as abated on 24-07-2008. Petitioner filed present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 5(3), 6, 8(4), 10(1), 20(1)(a), 33
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: 3
- Constitution of India: 226, 252
