1. Challenge to order declaring excess land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act — request to re-open proceedings based on joint family property shares. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 152
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T.Nanavati : S.N.Phukan
Shivgonda Anna Patil
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 8253 of 1995
Date of Decision : 2/9/99
The constitutional validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is upheld. Orders determining excess land become final and binding if no statutory appeal or revision is filed, making delayed challenges via writ petitions unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 6, 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) - Constitution of India - Article 31-A(1) - Challenge to constitutional validity of the Act - Validity already upheld by the Supreme Court - Contention that lack of provision for compensation at market rate for agricultural land violates the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) is misconceived as the State takes over excess vacant land. (Para 3)
(B) Writ Petition - Challenge to order of Competent Authority - No appeal or revision filed against the order - Order becomes final and binding - Challenge filed after a delay of ten years - High Court justified in dismissing the petition summarily. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellants inherited land which was subsequently declared as vacant and excess land by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. A notification was issued vesting the land in the government. The appellants later requested to re-open the proceedings on the ground that the share of a sister in the joint family property was not considered. Upon refusal, a Writ Petition was filed challenging the order and the constitutional validity of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act is rejected as it has been previously upheld. The order of the Competent Authority had become final and binding as no appeal or revision was filed. The Writ Petition was filed ten years after the determination of excess land.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act are violative of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution and whether a delayed Writ Petition is maintainable against a final order of the Competent Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is settled law. Furthermore, when no statutory remedy of appeal or revision is pursued, the order of the Competent Authority becomes final, and a delayed challenge via a Writ Petition is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Constitutional validity of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act under Article 31-A(1) — lack of market rate compensation — failure to consider joint family shares. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
3. Constitutional validity already upheld — compensation claim misconceived as excess vacant land is taken — order became final due to lack of timely appeal or revision. (Para 3 )
4. Orders determining excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act become final and binding if no appeal or revision is filed. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Is the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act valid under Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution?
Yes, the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has already been upheld by the court. (Para 3 )
7. Does the absence of market rate compensation for agricultural land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act violate Article 31-A(1)?
No, such a contention is misconceived because the land taken over by the State is excess vacant land. (Para 3 )
8. What is the legal effect of failing to file an appeal or revision against an order determining excess land?
If no appeal or revision application is filed against the order determining excess land, the order becomes final and binding on the parties. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
G.T.Nanavati, J.
(1) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the High court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 994/93. The appellant had challenged the order dated 20/09/1979 passed by the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Sangli and also the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act on the ground that they are violative of Article 31-A(1 of the Constitution. The High court summarily dismissed the Writ Petition.
(2) THE appellants case in the Writ Petition was that their father died in the year 1965 and on his death, land bearing Survey No. 228/3 was inherited by them. It was mutated in the name of the eldest son on 25.2.66. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the appellant no. 1 filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act on 4.9.76. Thereafter, on 20.9.79, the Competent Authority declared 6,100 sq.m. as vacant and excess land. A Notification to that effect and vesting of it in government under Section 10(3 was issued on 5.5.83. Notice under Section 10(5 for taking possession of the excess land was issued on 31.3.86. The appellant no. 1 on coming to know of it approached the Deputy Collector and the competent authority with a request to re-open the proceedings on the ground that while determining excess land, the competent authority had not taken into consideration share of his sister in the joint family property. The competent authority refused to re-open the case and therefore the appellants were required to file Writ Petition.
(3) THE challenge to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has to be rejected as its validity has already been upheld by this court. (See Maharao Saheb shri Bhim Singhji etc. vs. UOI and ors : AIR 1981 SC 234 and AIR 1985 SC 1650. Moreover, the contention raised by the appellants that as no provision has been made in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act regarding payment of compensation at market rate for acquisition of agricultural land, it is violative of the second proviso to Article 31-A(1 of the Constitution, is thoroughly misconceived as what is taken over by the State is the excess vacant land. The challenge to the order passed by the competent authority is also without substance. No appeal or revision application was filed against it and therefore it had become final and binding on the appellants. After the determination of the excess land, a notification under Section 10(1 of the Act was issued and the excess land vested in the State government under Section 10(3 of the Act. Ten years thereafter, the appellants had filed the Writ Petition challenging the said ordeR.The High court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the Writ Petition summarily. It is also worth noting that even though the sister of the appellants knew about the proceedings, she had not filed any objection at any stage before the land vested in the State government. She filed a Writ Petition in 1986 and it was dismissed
(4) AS we do not find any substance in this appeal, it is dismissed.
(5) NO order as to costs.
