Case Note & Summary
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the settlement order dated 30 November 2004 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, vesting notification dated 3 March 2005 under Section 10(3), possession notice dated 7 April 2005 under Section 10(5), and the revision order dated 28 August 2006 under Section 34. The petitioners, a company and its executive director, held lands in Thane urban agglomeration. After filing returns under Section 6, an order on 30 April 1984 declared 93,622.01 sq. metres excess. Exemptions under Section 20 were granted on 10 March 1988 and modified on 7 November 1990, requiring surrender of 22,835.375 sq. metres on 6 January 1994 for MHADA. Subsequent restrictions due to chemical zone and development plan rendered several parcels non-buildable. The competent authority passed a fresh order under Section 8(4) declaring excess land, revised to 69,356.394 sq. metres on 30 November 2004, and issued vesting and possession notices. The revision partly succeeded, setting aside proceedings for 19,023.23 sq. metres residential zone. The Division Bench of the High Court on 11 April 2007 allowed the petition, remanding for fresh computation and directing exclusion of non-buildable areas and adjustment of surrendered land. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3227 of 2008 set aside this order on 5 May 2008 and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal after considering counter affidavits, with impleadment of Thane Municipal Corporation and MHADA. The judgment text is incomplete; the final decision after remand is not provided.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), and 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are valid given the changes in development plan and non-buildable nature of land; whether the area surrendered earlier and non-buildable land should be excluded while computing excess vacant land; whether the repeal of the Act affects the pending proceedings.
Law Points
- excess vacant land computation must exclude non-buildable areas and reservations
- surrendered land must be accounted for in re-computation
- opportunity of hearing required before adverse orders
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 85
Writ Petition No. 2125 of 2007
B. R. Gavai, N. J. Jamadar
Dr. Milind Sathe, Mr. Vineet B. Naik, Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ms. Krushi Barfiwala, Ms. Rima Desai (for Petitioners); Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Mr. Y. S. Khochare (for State); Mr. R. S. Apte, Mr. N. R. Bubna (for Respondent 4); Ms. Aparna Murlidharan (for Respondent 5)
Bombay Wire Ropes Limited and Mihir Kumar Chakraborty
State of Maharashtra, Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Secretary of Urban Development Department, Thane Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 declaring excess vacant land, issuing vesting notification and possession notice, and upholding in revision.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the settlement order dated 30 November 2004 under Section 8(4), vesting notification dated 3 March 2005 under Section 10(3), possession notice dated 7 April 2005 under Section 10(5), and the order dated 28 August 2006 under Section 34; directions to allow implementation of scheme under Section 20; alternatively, recomputation of excess vacant land or restoration of surrendered land.
Filing Reason
Subsequent restrictions due to chemical zone and development plan rendered many parcels non-buildable, and the competent authority erroneously declared excess vacant land without considering the surrendered area and non-buildable zones.
Previous Decisions
On 11 April 2007, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and remanded for fresh computation with directions to exclude non-buildable areas and adjust surrendered land. This order was set aside by the Supreme Court on 5 May 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 3227 of 2008, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal after considering counter affidavits.
Issues
Whether the orders under Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), and 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are valid considering the changes in development plan and non-buildable nature of land.
Whether the area surrendered earlier and non-buildable land should be excluded while computing excess vacant land.
Whether the repeal of the Act affects the pending proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners submitted that the computation of excess vacant land was erroneous due to non-buildable areas and that earlier surrendered land should be deducted; they also contended that no effective hearing was granted. Respondents maintained the orders were valid.
Judgment Excerpts
the settlement order dated 30th November, 2004 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976... the vesting notification dated 3rd March, 2005 under Section 10(3); the possession notice issued on 7th April, 2005 under Section 10(5) and the order passed by the State Government dated 28th August, 2006, under Section 34 of the Principal Act.
The Petitioners had further prayed for the direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to implement the scheme under Section 20(1)(a) of the Principal Act, settled on 7th November, 1990, and, alternatively, prayed for recomputation of the excess vacant land.
status quo as of today shall be maintained in the meantime
Procedural History
Petitioners filed returns under Section 6; order under Section 8(4) on 30 April 1984 declaring 93,622.01 sq mts excess; exemption under Section 20 on 10 March 1988 for 93,522.61 sq mts; modified scheme on 7 November 1990 for 74,906.127 sq mts and surrender of 22,835.375 sq mts on 6 January 1994; restrictions due to chemical zone and development plan; fresh order under Section 8(4) declaring 53,585.074 sq mts excess, revised on 30 November 2004 to 69,356.394 sq mts; vesting notification under Section 10(3) and possession notice under Section 10(5) on 7 April 2005; revision to State Government under Section 34; order on 28 August 2006 upholding excess but setting aside proceedings for 19023.23 sq mts residential zone; writ petition filed; Division Bench allowed on 11 April 2007 remanding; Supreme Court set aside on 5 May 2008 and remitted back to High Court; impleadment of Thane Municipal Corporation and MHADA.
Acts & Sections
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 6, 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), 20(1)(a), 34
- Constitution of India: 226
