IMPORTANT POINT
The Revisional Authority exercising powers u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act is duty bound to take into account the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events and to consider whether the powers should have been exercised or not.

Headnote:Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976—Sections 34, 8 & 6—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope of powers—Owners of land filed a statement u/s 6(1) of the Act in 1976—Final order was passed declaring certain land to be excess land under the Act in 1977—Notification u/s 10(3) was issued and the land stood vested in the State ‘free from all encumbrances’—Competent Authority offered the land to the Municipal Corporation for occupancy by order dated 8-1-1979—By an order dated 9-1-79 issued u/s 10(5) of the Act, land owners were directed to handover possession within 30 days—Appeal filed by land owners against an order passed u/s 10(3) of the Act was dismissed as not maintainable—No challenge made against an order passed u/s 8 of the Act—However, in 1990, land owners filed revision u/s 34 of the Act—Revisional Authority held that land owners had not been given sufficient opportunity for showing ownership documents to the competent Authority—Neither the owners joined the Municipal Corporation as party nor notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Corporation by the Revisional Authority—Whether Revisional Authority was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority without making the Corporation a party—(No)—Whether High Court was justified in holding that Corporation was not ‘affected’ party—(No)—Matter remitted to the Revisional Authority for taking fresh decision.
       Held : In the present case, an order was passed by the Competent Authority in 1977, and in 1979, the land vested in the State, possession was taken over from land-owners, application was made by the Pune Municipal Corporation, land was allotted to it, an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- was paid by the Corporation, possession was handed over to the Corporation and Corporation was undertaking construction activities. An appeal by the land-owners was dismissed in 1979 and revision, which was filed after more than ten years met with the same fate. The State Government was, therefore, expected to issue a notice and afford hearing to the Corporation when second revision petition was filed by the land-owners. The Government was aware of all the above facts which were on record. It was also alive of the fact that a Civil Suit was filed before more than ten years in 1979 and status quo order was obtained by the land-owners. Therefore, when it was submitted that the State ought to have acted fairly towards land owners, it ought to have acted fairly towards Municipal Corporation also. But Pune Municipal Corporation was never issued any notice, nor given opportunity for hearing. Even when the Corporation challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority in a writ petition in the High Court, it was not conceded by the State that the order in revision was liable to be set aside as it was not made by the Revisional Authority in observance of principles of natural justice and the matter must be sent back to the Government to decide it afresh after extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties. (Para 41)
       It may be recalled that neither in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the land owners in 1979, nor in the first revision nor in the second revision, which are part of the record, it was even alleged by the land-owners that they were not served with the notice under Section 8 of the Act and they had no opportunity to put forward their case and the order was, therefore, liable to be set aside. In fact, no appeal was filed against an order passed under Section 8 of the Act. Be that as it may, had such contention been taken by the land-owners and had the appellant-Corporation been joined as party respondent before the Revisional Authority in the second revision, it could have pointed out that the land-owners were aware of the proceedings and because of such knowledge, they had not raised such contention. Ultimately, in such matters, the Court would apply ‘prejudice test’. If the circumstances had proved that the land-owners were in know of proceedings, it is possible that the Revisional Authority might have refrained from exercising discretionary jurisdiction. Moreover, the appellant-Corporation could have contended that there was gross, unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the land-owners and it was not a fit case to exercise revisional power after such period.(Para 42)
       (ii) Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976—Section 34—Revisional jurisdiction—State Government can exercise revisional powers suo motu—A revision can also be filed by party aggrieved—Revision filed by land owners could not be held to be not maintainable.
       Held : It is true that Section 34 enables the State Government to exercise revisional powers suo motu. That, however, does not mean that a party cannot invoke such jurisdiction. A revision can also be filed by party aggrieved and it can invite the attention of the Revisional Authority as to illegality or impropriety of any order passed under the Act. The revision filed by the land-owners, therefore, could not be held to be not maintainable. (Para 22)
       (iii) Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976—Section 34—Revisional jurisdiction—Period of limitation not prescribed—Concept of ‘reasonable time’ can be invoked and power must be exercised within such period.
       Held : Now it is true that no period for revision is provided in the Act. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the land-owners that when the Legislature did not think it fit to prescribe period of limitation, such power can be exercised ‘at any time’ and no Court by a ‘judicial fiat’, usurp legislative power and prescribe period of limitation. It is no doubt true that the statute does not fix period of limitation within which revisional power should be exercised under Section 34 of the Act. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has not fixed period of limitation as it had empowered the State Government to exercise revisional power suo motu. In our judgment, however, only in such cases i.e. where the period of limitation is not prescribed that the concept of ‘reasonable time’ can be invoked and power must be exercised within such period.(Para 25)
       Broad contention of the land owners that when no period of limitation is prescribed, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised at any time cannot but be rejected. If the law prescribes period of limitation, the action must be taken within such period. But where the law does not prescribe limitation, the Court would import the concept of ‘reasonable time’. We may, however, hasten to add that what is the length of the reasonable time would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.(Para 28)
       In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the Revisional Authority was duty bound to take into account the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events from 1977 to 1995 and to consider whether the powers should have been exercised or not. Since no such exercise has been undertaken, the order suffers from legal infirmity and must be quashed.(Para 29)
       (iv) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—State has to act fairly—But the State or a public authority must be fair not to one party but to all the parties to the litigation.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J.—This appeal is filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) against the judgment and order dated July 8, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 643 of 1996. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the State of Maharashtra on June 21, 1995 in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) holding that no sufficient opportunity had been given to the land-owners before declaring their land to be excess and vacant land under the Act.

2. The case has a checkered history and to appreciate rival contentions raised by the parties in their proper perspective, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the facts.

Pranlal Zaverchand Doshi (since deceased) who has been represented through his heirs and legal representatives and Chandravadan Pranlal Doshi were owners of certain lands situate at village Mouje Parvati, Taluka Haveli, District Pune in the State of Maharashtra. On February 17, 1976, the Act came into force in the State of Maharashtra. The owners of the land filed a statement under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act in the prescribed form on August 14, 1976. The Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration prepared draft statement under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act. The draft statement was sought to be served in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. An order was passed by the Competent Authority on April 20, 1977 under sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act observing therein that a notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued and sent to the declarant by Registered A.D. but it was received back ‘undelivered’. It was also observed that the notice was properly sent at the address given by the declarant and hence the owner was treated as ‘served’. Since the declarant had not raised any objection nor he remained present on the date fixed for enquiry, the notice was finalized without any change. A direction was issued to pass final order as required by Section 9 of the Act.

3. Pursuant to the above direction, final order came to be passed on April 25, 1977. After the final statement, a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act was issued on April 28, 1977 intimating the persons having interest in the land to prefer their claims to the Competent Authority either personally or through an agent within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of notification in the Official Gazette. The said notification was published in the Maharashtra Gazette on May 12, 1977. The case was fixed for hearing on June 23, 1977. On June 16, 1978, the Competent Authority issued notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act declaring excess land to be acquired by the State. It was notified for the information of general public that the land specified in the Schedule appended thereto would be deemed to have been acquired by the Government of Maharashtra with effect from July 31, 1978 and would be deemed to have been vested in the Government of Maharashtra free from all encumbrances from that date. The said notification was published in the Official Gazette on August 24, 1978.

4. Since the land stood vested in the State of Maharashtra free from all encumbrances, the appellant-Corporation made an application in August, 1978 for purchase of land declared to be excess land under the Act and stood vested in the State. The Competent Authority vide its letter dated January 8, 1979 offered the land to the appellant-Corporation for occupancy price of Rs.1,45,000/- for Development Plan Reservation, Pune Municipal Corporation. In the said communication, it was stated that the terms and conditions subject to which the land was offered, were enclosed in the form of Agreement. If those terms and conditions were acceptable to the Corporation, the latter was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 258

IMPORTANT POINTThe Revisional Authority exercising powers u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act is duty bound to take into account the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events and to consider whether the powers should have been exercised or not.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
The Revisional Authority exercising powers u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act is duty bound to take into account the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events and to consider whether the powers should have been exercised or not.