Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition in Urban Land Ceiling Case — Possession Not Taken Before Repeal Date. Land declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 but not taken into possession before repeal on 29.11.2007 stands excluded from the Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, seven individuals, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) challenging the continued application of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to their lands. The lands had been declared surplus under the Act, but the petitioners claimed that possession had not been taken by the authorities before the repeal of the Act on 29.11.2007. They sought a declaration that the lands stood excluded from the Act and that they were entitled to retain possession. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, opposed the petition. The court examined the records and found that notices under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act were issued on 01.11.2007 and 05.11.2007 respectively, but actual possession was not taken before the repeal date. The Divisional Commissioner, pursuant to a time-bound program framed on 12.05.2010 as per orders of the Supreme Court, passed an order on 30.07.2016 confirming that possession had not been taken. The court held that since possession was not taken before the repeal, the lands are excluded from the Act. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to act in accordance with the law.

Headnote

A) Urban Land Ceiling - Repeal of Act - Possession Not Taken - Exclusion of Surplus Land - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Sections 10(3), 10(5) - Petitioners' lands were declared surplus but possession was not taken before the repeal of the Act on 29.11.2007. The Divisional Commissioner's order dated 30.07.2016 confirmed that possession was not taken. The court held that the lands are excluded from the Act and petitioners are entitled to retain possession. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners' lands, declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 but not taken into possession before the repeal of the Act on 29.11.2007, are excluded from the provisions of the Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The lands of the petitioners are excluded from the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as possession was not taken before the repeal date of 29.11.2007. The respondents are directed to act in accordance with the law.

Law Points

  • Repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
  • 1976
  • Possession not taken before repeal
  • Exclusion of surplus land
  • Time bound program by Supreme Court
  • Notice under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 147

Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2016

2017-03-24

B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna Joshi

Mr. R.R. Srivastava for Petitioners, Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondents

State of Maharashtra, Special Land Acquisition/competent Authority and Deputy Collector, (Urban Land Ceiling), Collector, Tahsildar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the continued application of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to lands declared surplus but not taken into possession before repeal.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a declaration that their lands are excluded from the Act and that they are entitled to retain possession.

Filing Reason

Petitioners claimed that despite the repeal of the Act, the authorities were still treating their lands as surplus and attempting to take possession.

Previous Decisions

Divisional Commissioner passed an order on 30.07.2016 confirming that possession was not taken before repeal.

Issues

Whether the lands declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 but not taken into possession before the repeal of the Act on 29.11.2007 are excluded from the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that after repeal, lands not taken into possession are saved and excluded from the Act, and they continue in possession. Respondents opposed the petition, but the court found that possession was not taken before repeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, lands declared surplus but not taken into possession before the repeal of the Act on 29.11.2007 stand excluded from the Act, and the original owners are entitled to retain possession.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioners claim that after repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 29.11.2007, the lands earlier declared surplus, but, not taken into possession, are excluded and saved from that enactment. The orders shows that possession of petitioners land was not taken before 29.11.2007. Verification of original records show that notice under Section 10[3] of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was issued on 01.11.2007; Notice under Section 10[5] was issued on 05.11.2007.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The court heard the matter and by consent, took it up for final hearing. The court examined the records and the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 30.07.2016. The court allowed the petition on 24.03.2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 10(3), 10(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Mutation Entry and Revenue Orders in Land Dispute — Violation of Natural Justice as Petitioners Were Not Heard Before Recording of Mutation Entry and Consequential Orders. The court held that the mutation entry and the ord...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kidnapping and Compelled Marriage Case Under IPC. Conviction upheld under Sections 366, 343, 323 and 506 IPC as prosecution proved forcible abduction of minor victim with intent to compel marriage, supported by victi...