IMPORTANT POINT
The competent authority need not await decision u/ss 20 or 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, before declaring and publishing excess land by a notification u/s 10(3) of the Act.

ORDER

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made on September 24, 1982 in W.P. No. 877/79.

2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants were the erstwhile owners of G.T.S. Nos. 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3 in Pune on land of an extent of 20,948.40 sq. meters. After the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976) (for short, the "Act") had come into force, the appellants filed their return under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority had issued notice on September 20, 1977. The appellants had filed their objections on December 7, 1977. They also filed application under Section 20 for exemption. By proceedings dated December 22, 1977, the objections on final statement were over-ruled and the appellants were found to be in possession of surplus land admeasuring 13,410.88 sq. meters. Then the objection on final statement came to be called and the same was under Section 10(2) of the Act considered and rejected. Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published vesting the excess land in the Government w.e.f. March 12, 1979 and the same came to be published in the State Gazette on February 16, 1978. Thereafter the appellants have filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The appellants filed the writ petition challenging the validity of the notification under Section 10(3) which was upheld.

3. From the record, it would appear that the application filed under Section 20 was disposed of on January 22, 1979 and thereafter the publication under Section 10(3) came to be made. It also now turns out that on March 29, 1979, the appellants made an application under Section 21 and simultaneously, they filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the notification issued under Section 10(3). The Division Bench held that the procedure followed by the competent authority was not vitiated by any error of law. Since the land had already vested in the State on March 12, 1979 pursuant to the notification published under Section 10(3), the question of further opportunity to the appellants did not arise. When the matter was heard by this Court on November 21, 1995, Shri Bhimrao Naik, learned senior counsel, had drawn our attention to the fact that his application made under Section 21 was pending consideration. The appellants had not mentioned the fact of their filing application under Section 20 and rejection thereof before the publication of the notification under Section 10(3). Since it was contended that the application was pending, we directed the counsel for the State to find out as to the stage of the matter. In furtherance thereof, we were informed that the application was pending. An affidavit was filed by Mr. P.A. Mane, Additional Collector in this Court that the application was pending consideration and sought permission of its disposal. Accordingly, by order dated February 22, 1996, time was granted to the Government to consider and dispose of the application within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order. An order dated 8.7.1996 disposing of the application under Section 21 has been placed before us.

4. Shri Naik, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has contended that until the application under Section 21 of the Act was considered and dispsosed of, the competent authority had no power to have the notification under Section 10(3) published. What all the competent authority could do under the Act was to finalise the determination of the excess land and then await the decision of the authority under Section 21 and thereafter notification under Section 10(3) could be published. In support therof, he placed reliance on the instruction issued by the Government of India dated September 15, 1976 under Section 36 of the Act as well as the direction issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated May 22, 1989 following the decision of another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as to the manner of the disposal o