SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 951

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6022 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24021 of 2013) With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16944 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Adv. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv. Ms. Rumi Chanda, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Proceedings concluded much before repeal of an Act will not abate on repeal.
Action taken by an authority against whom there was no injunction, cannot be faulted.
Repealing Act saving validity of order granting exemption will not have any application where no exemption was granted.
A party who did not challenge judgment of the single Judge but merely got impleaded in LPA as a respondent cannot maintain an SLP on dismissal of the LPA.

Headnote:

(a) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 - Section 10 - Declaration of excess land not challenged by petitioner - Becoming final - Taking over of possession and vesting in State way back in 1990 also not controverted - Proceedings will not abate on repeal of the Act. (Para 8)

(b) Administration of justice - Injunction issued by civil court in respect of subject land against owners of the land - Not against the competent authority under Act, 1976 - Held no error in taking over possession of excess land. (Para 13)

(c) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (Repealing Act 1999) - Section 3(1)(b) of Repealing Act 1999 - Saving validity of an order granting exemption under Section 20(1) or any action taken thereunder - Instantly no exemption granted on the date of coming into force of Act 1999 - High Court rightly rejected appellant’s petition. (Para 17, 18)

(d) Administration of justice - Party aggrieved by judgment of single Judge of High Court not filing appeal - Merely getting impleaded as a respondent in the LPA - Already held, LPA rightly dismissed on merit - SLP filed by the said party dismissed. (Para 19, 20)

Facts of the case:

The appellant claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing cement pipes through M/s General Cement Pipe Company Limited on a leased land. The appellant claims leasehold rights in the land under a rent note dated 27 March 1975. Upon the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, Form I under Section 6(1) was submitted on behalf of the Company, declaring that the land was leased from the original owners. Village form No. 7/12 contained an entry for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 to the effect that the land had been put to non-agricultural use without permission. The competent authority under Section 8(4) declared land admeasuring 4160 sq m as excess vacant land. A final statement was issued under Section 9 and a notification under Section 10(1) was published followed by a notification under Section 10(3) and a notice under Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) intimating that possession of the excess land would be taken over.

The appellant filed an application for exemption under Section 20.

The order of the competent authority declaring the land as excess vacant land was challenged in an appeal under Section 33 before the Urban Land Tribunal which was dismissed An order was passed under Section 11 in the matter of compensation.

The appellant filed Special Civil Application before the High Court.

The High Court disposed of the above SCA with a direction to the State Government to expeditiously decide the appellant’s application under Section 20. The application under Section 20 was rejected in view of the fact that the land had vested in the State. Thereupon, the appellant filed another Writ Petition being SCA No. 9057 of 1998 challenging the rejection of the application under Section 20.

The application was allowed by a Single Judge. However, the Division Bench set aside the order and remitted the writ proceedings back to the Single Judge for fresh disposal. Upon remand, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the SCA.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, affirmed the dismissal of a Writ Petition by the Single Judge.

Finding of the Court:

Division Bench of the High Court rightly dismissed the LPA.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted, [SLP(C) No. 24021 of 2013].

2. The appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 24 January 2013 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, affirming the dismissal of a Writ Petition by the Single Judge. On 7 July 2005, the Single Judge dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the appellant seeking to set aside an order of the State Government rejecting an application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, [“Act of 1976”].

3. The appellant claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing cement pipes through M/s General Cement Pipe Company Limited [“Company”] on land bearing Survey No. 288/4 admeasuring 5160 sq m situated at village Chandlodia, Taluka City District, Ahmedabad. The appellant claims leasehold rights in the land under a rent note dated 27 March 1975. Upon the enactment of the Act of 1976 on 12 September 1976, Form I under Section 6(1) was submitted on behalf of the Company, declaring that the land was leased from the original owners. Village form No. 7/12 contained an entry for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 to the effect that the land had been put to non-agricultural use without permission. As a result, by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(q), the land upon which construction had been put up was liable to be considered as vacant land. On 26 November 1982, a draft statement under Section 8(1) was issued. On 26 August 1985, the competent authority under Section 8(4) declared land admeasuring 4160 sq m as excess vacant land. On 17 September 1985, a final statement was issued under Section 9. A notification under Section 10(1) was published on 31 January 1986. This was followed by a notification under Section 10(3) on 6 December 1986. A notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 6 March 1987. On 6 July 1990, the competent authority issued a notice under Section 10(6) intimating that possession of the excess land would be taken over.

4. At this stage, on 19 July 1990, the appellant filed an application for exemption under Section 20.

5. According to the appellant, on 23 July 1990, the Company instituted a suit [Regular Civil Suit No. 469 of 1990] before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad in which an order of status quo was granted on the same day. The case of the appellant is that on 24 July 1990, possession of the excess land was purported to be taken over under a valid panchnama, inspite of the order of the Civil Court. On 20 July 1990, the order of the competent authority dated 26 August 1985 declaring the land as excess vacant land was challenged in an appeal under Section 33 before the Urban Land Tribunal [“Tribunal”]. On 31 December 1990, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the delay of over four years had not been satisfactorily explained. On 1 September 1992, an order was passed under Section 11 in the matter of compensation.

6. On 3 March 1998, Special Civil Application [“SCA”] No. 1584 of 1998 was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to grant appropriate land (at least 3000 sq. mtrs.) or any other appropriate measurement of land which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, to the petitioner firm so that the manufacturing activities may be carried on properly, on merits and in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

(B) The respondent authorities may be restrained from taking possession of the land bearing Survey No. 288/4 admeasuring 5160 sq. mtrs. situated at village Chandlodiya, Taluka City District Ahmedabad till pending hearing and final disposal of the application under Section 20 of the Act, pending before the Revenue Secretary or the status-quo with regard to the possession of the said lan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top