Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Modern Paints, a partnership firm, acquired land in Oshiwara, Mumbai, under a conveyance dated 12 June 1975. On 1 August 1977, it filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). An order under Section 20 of the ULC Act was passed exempting the property from Chapter III of the Act. The total area of the land was 4854 sq mts, with vacant land of 1606.14 sq mts. On 12 December 2022, the Petitioner applied to the 2nd Respondent (Collector and Competent Authority) agreeing to pay the premium as required and seeking removal of a remark in the property card. On 9 February 2023, a demand for premium of Rs 1,46,36,057/- was issued for the entire land, including both the built-up and vacant portions. The Petitioner challenged this demand. The Court, relying on its earlier decisions in Salim Alimohomed Porbanderwalla, Voltas Ltd, and RR Realtors, held that the demand for premium under the ULC Repeal Act can only be for the vacant land, not the entire land. The Court noted that the exemption order clearly specified the vacant land area. The Repeal Act, adopted by Maharashtra on 29 November 2007, provides that only vacant land that had vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act is deemed to have vested. Since the land was exempted, no vesting occurred. The Court quashed the demand and directed the Respondents to issue a fresh demand limited to the vacant land area of 1606.14 sq mts, with the Petitioner to pay the premium within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Urban Land Ceiling - Repeal Act - Premium Demand - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 20, Section 6(1), Repeal Act 1999, Section 3(3) - The issue was whether the State could demand premium for the entire land area that was once subject to ULC proceedings, including built-up area, or only for the vacant land. The Court held that the demand must be limited to the vacant land as per the exemption order and the Repeal Act, and cannot include the built-up area. (Paras 4-10) B) Urban Land Ceiling - Exemption Order - Interpretation - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section 20 - The exemption order under Section 20 exempted the entire land from Chapter III, but the vacant land was separately quantified. The Court held that the premium demand must be confined to the vacant land area as specified in the exemption order. (Paras 5-6) C) Urban Land Ceiling - Repeal Act - Vesting - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Repeal Act 1999, Section 3(3) - Under the Repeal Act, only vacant land that had vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act is deemed to have vested. The Court held that no demand for premium can be made for land that was never vested or for built-up area. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a demand for premium can be raised for the entire area that was subject to ULC proceedings, including the area of vacant land, or only for the vacant land.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the demand dated 9 February 2023, and directed the Respondents to issue a fresh demand limited to the vacant land area of 1606.14 sq mts. The Petitioner was directed to pay the premium within four weeks of the fresh demand.
Law Points
- Urban Land Ceiling Act
- Repeal Act
- premium demand limited to vacant land
- exemption order
- Section 20 exemption
- Section 6(1) statement
- Section 3(3) Repeal Act
