Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Anupam Insulating Industries, owned land at mouza Nagalwadi, Hingna, Nagpur, admeasuring 6.07 HR. Out of this, 59000 sq. mtr. was declared surplus vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCR Act). The original owner, Sunetrabai, had filed a return under Section 6(1) in 1976, and an order under Section 8(4) was passed on 24.2.1984 declaring the surplus. The petitioner purchased the land in 1999 and was in possession. On 2.11.2007, a notification under Section 10(3) was published in the Government Gazette declaring the land deemed to have vested in the State Government, but the notification did not specify the date of vesting. A notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 6.11.2007. The petitioner challenged these actions, seeking quashing of the notification and notice, and a declaration that the proceedings abated due to the repeal of the ULCR Act. The court held that the notification under Section 10(3) must specify the date of vesting, and its absence renders the notification invalid. Further, since the State had not taken possession of the land, the proceedings abated upon the repeal of the Act. The petition was allowed, the notification and notice were quashed, and the proceedings were declared abated.
Headnote
A) Urban Land Ceiling - Vesting Notification - Section 10(3) ULCR Act - Notification under Section 10(3) must specify the date on which the land vests in the State Government - Failure to specify date renders notification invalid - Held that the notification dated 02.11.2007 is invalid as it does not mention the date of vesting (Paras 5-6).
B) Urban Land Ceiling - Abatement of Proceedings - Repeal of ULCR Act - Proceedings under the repealed Act abate if possession of surplus land has not been taken by the State - Since possession remained with petitioner, proceedings abated - Held that the petition is allowed and proceedings are declared abated (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is valid when it does not specify the date of vesting, and whether the proceedings under the Act stand abated upon its repeal.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The notification dated 02.11.2007 under Section 10(3) and the notice dated 06.11.2007 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are quashed and set aside. The proceedings under the said Act are declared as abated.
Law Points
- Urban Land Ceiling Act
- Section 10(3) notification must specify date of vesting
- Repeal of ULCR Act leads to abatement of proceedings if possession not taken
- Vesting under Section 10(3) requires actual date of vesting
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 117
WRIT PETITION NO. 339 OF 2014
Mr. H.B. Bargat for Petitioner; Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, AGP, for Respondents
M/s Anupam Insulating Industries, through its Proprietor, Gopikishan s/o Shankarlal Tapadiya
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai; Competent Authority and Deputy Collector (ULC), Nagpur; Tahsildar, Hingna, Distt. Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging notification under Section 10(3) and notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and seeking declaration of abatement of proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of notification dated 02.11.2007 under Section 10(3) and notice dated 06.11.2007 under Section 10(5) of ULCR Act, and declaration that proceedings under ULCR Act abated.
Filing Reason
Petitioner purchased land declared surplus; notification under Section 10(3) did not specify date of vesting; ULCR Act was repealed; petitioner sought to invalidate vesting and abate proceedings.
Previous Decisions
Order under Section 8(4) passed on 24.2.1984 declaring 59000 sq. mtr. as surplus; notification under Section 10(3) published on 2.11.2007.
Issues
Whether the notification under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act is valid when it does not specify the date of vesting.
Whether the proceedings under the ULCR Act stand abated upon its repeal when possession has not been taken by the State.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the notification under Section 10(3) did not specify the date of vesting, rendering it invalid.
Petitioner argued that since possession was not taken, proceedings abated upon repeal of the ULCR Act.
Respondents argued that the notification was valid and proceedings did not abate.
Ratio Decidendi
A notification under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act must specify the date on which the land vests in the State Government; failure to do so renders the notification invalid. Upon repeal of the ULCR Act, proceedings abate if the State has not taken possession of the surplus land.
Judgment Excerpts
The notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the ULCR Act was published in the Government Gazette on 2.11.2007, thereby declaring that the said land was deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government. However, no date of vesting of the land was specified.
The notification under Section 10(3) must specify the date of vesting. In the absence of such date, the notification is invalid.
Since the possession of the land has not been taken by the State, the proceedings under the ULCR Act stand abated upon its repeal.
Procedural History
The original owner filed return under Section 6(1) on 15.9.1976. Order under Section 8(4) passed on 24.2.1984. Notification under Section 10(3) published on 2.11.2007. Notice under Section 10(5) issued on 6.11.2007. Petitioner filed writ petition in 2014. Heard on 7.7.2014, judgment pronounced on 8.8.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 6(1), 8(4), 10(3), 10(5)
