Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, nine individuals and one through their power of attorney holder, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the State Government dated 31st October, 2007, passed under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the State Government had no authority to decide any revisional proceedings under Section 34 after 14th March, 2007, the date on which the State of Maharashtra proposed to repeal the Act. The dispute pertained to certain lands owned by the petitioners. In connection with the disputed property, an order was passed on 24th March, 2003, by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Act in ULC Case No. 1539/13A. That order was based on the statement filed by the petitioners under Section 6(1) of the Act. In their statement, the petitioners had pointed out that no construction was permitted on Survey No. 18/8 at Rahatni due to lack of access road, and that land at Survey No. 134/2/1/1 at Pashan was affected by road widening. The Competent Authority, by its order dated 24th March, 2003, concluded that Survey No. 18/8 did not have an approach road on the appointed day (17th February, 1976) and that Survey No. 134/2/1/1 was affected by road widening to the extent of 2710 sq.mtrs out of 11400 sq.mtrs. The Competent Authority found that the petitioners were entitled to hold 9000 sq.mtrs. The State Government, in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 34, passed the impugned order on 31st October, 2007. The petitioners argued that after the proposal to repeal the Act on 14th March, 2007, the State Government lost its jurisdiction to decide the revision. The Court, after hearing the parties, held that the mere proposal to repeal the Act does not divest the State Government of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 34, as the Act continues to be in force until it is actually repealed. The petition was dismissed. Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Urban Land Ceiling - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - State Government's power to revise - The petitioners challenged the State Government's revisional order dated 31st October, 2007, contending that after the proposal to repeal the Act on 14th March, 2007, the State had no authority to decide revision. The Court held that the mere proposal to repeal does not divest the State of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 34, as the Act continues to be in force until actual repeal. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government has authority to decide revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 after 14th March, 2007, the date on which the State of Maharashtra proposed to repeal the Act.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
- 1976 continues until the Act is actually repealed
- mere proposal to repeal does not divest authority
- Competent Authority's order under Section 8(4) is subject to revision
