IMPORTANT POINT
Effect of Repeal Act discussed.

JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Two questions arise for our consideration, namely, (1) whether the High Court ought to have considered the Respondent's plea that the possession allegedly taken on June 27, 1989 was by an officer who was not authorised and only a paper possession was taken, and (2) whether the High Court was justified in directing the competent authority to examine the case of the Respondent in the light of Notification dated October 6, 1997 in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. (for short, 1999 Repeal Act').

4. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that on November 4, 1982 a draft statement of land held by the Respondent in excess of ceiling limit was prepared Under Section 8(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 1976 Act') and notice Under Section 8(3) was issued. Final statement Under Section 9 was issued by the competent authority on March 5, 1986 and ultimately on September 23, 1987 notification Under Section 10(1) was issued which was published in the Government Gazette on October 8, 1987. In the meanwhile, the Respondent made an application for exemption Under Section 20 of the 1976 Act which came to be rejected on December 15, 1983. The Respondent challenged the rejection of the application made Under Section 20 by filing Special Civil Application before the High Court. On March 26, 1984, the single Judge of the High Court remanded the matter to the State Government to decide afresh the Respondent's application Under Section 20. Thereafter, the State Government heard the Respondent and rejected the application on August 23, 1984. The Respondent filed another Special Civil Application challenging the order of the State Government dated August 23, 1984 and notification issued Under Section 8(4) of the 1976 Act.

5. Learned single Judge dismissed the said Special Civil Application on April 28, 1994.

6. The Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal which was disposed of on June 17, 2008 whereby the order of the single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority as indicated above.

7. The Appellants filed review application seeking review of the order dated June 17, 2008 which was dismissed on December 19, 2008.

8. Coming to the second question first, it may be immediately noticed that the 1976 Act came to be repealed by the 1999 Repeal Act. The 1999 Repeal Act came into effect on March 31, 1999 in the State of Gujarat. Section 3 of the 1999 Repeal Act saves certain actions taken under the 1976 Act. Section 3 reads as follows:

Section 3. Saving.-(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect-

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under Sub-section (3) of Section10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority;

(b) the validity of any order granting exemption under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under Sub-section (1) of Section 20.

(2) Where-

(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and

(b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government.

9. Section 4 provides that all proceedings relating to the 1976 Act pending immediately before the commencement of the 1999 Repeal Act shall abate. Proviso that follows Section 4 provides that the abatement of legal proceedings which is provided in the main Section shall not apply