2010 Supreme(Bom) 806

2010(5) ALL MR 169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY P. B. MAJMUDAR & R. M. SA V ANT, JJ.
Estate Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
Writ Petition No.5151 of 2005 18th June, 2010.

Headnote:Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 34 - Revisional powers - Excess land - Petitioner, erstwhile owners of land challenging initiation of suo motu revisional proceedings - Held - Powers under Section 34 of Act to be exercised by Revisional Authority within reasonable time - Revisional powers sought to be exercised after period of 7 to 10 years under Section 8(4) orders - Revisional proceedings pending with State Government at relevant time, now cannot be decided as it abated - Petition allowed with directions. - The principal ground on which initiation of the said proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act has been challenged is that there has been an inordinate delay in exercising revisional jurisdiction and, therefore, on the said ground the said proceedings are required to be quashed. The above writ petition had come up for admission before the Division Bench of this Court on 1st February 2006 on which date the Petition came to be admitted and interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (d) of the petition came to be granted which is undisputedly in operation till this date. In the interregnum the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act has been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and the said Repeal Act has come into operation on 29th November 2007. In view of the fact that the said Act has been repealed, the revisional proceedings which were pending with the State Government at the relevant time now cannot be decided and therefore in view of the repeal it would have to be held that the said proceedings have abated.

       In so far as issue as regards inordinate delay in taking recourse to the provisions relating to revision and consequential vitiation of the said proceedings on that score is concerned, the said issue is no more res integra and is covered by the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8571 of 2007 and companion matters dated 12th June, 2008. In the more or less identical facts where revisional powers were sought to be exercised after a considerable period of time. The Division Bench relying upon another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Automotive Research Association of India v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 (1) Bom CR 278 held that powers under Section 34 are to be exercised by the Revisional Authority within a reasonable period and this Court has held that three years would be reasonable period. The Division Bench further held that in view of the repeal of the ULC Act, no order can now be made by the Government. In the instant case as can be seen the said revisional powers were sought to be exercised after a period of 7 to 10 years of the 8(4) orders.

       In the light of what has been held by the Division Bench as above, the instant petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a).

        Though Court have allowed the petition as above, in the intervening period certain events have occurred which Court is required to deal with. In so far as portion out of Survey No. 750, presently forming part of final plot No. 541, TDS, Nashik, an area of 2400 sq. mtrs, according to the petitioner, was wrongly taken possession of by the Nashik Municipal Corporation and tenements for the weaker section have been constructed on the said plot of land by the Regional Board of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was taken over without acquisition and constructed upon. This resulted in the petitioner filing Writ Petition No. 2192 of 2007 in this Court challenging the said action of the Nashik Municipal Corporation. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench by an order dated 11th August 2008. By the said order it was directed that the Nashik Municipal Corporation would submit a proposal for acquisition of the said land which it had taken over and on such proposal being submitted, the Collector shall inform the Corporation, the approximate amount which is required to be deposited by the Corporation so that the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer shall proceed further. It appears that in terms of the said directions, the amount was deposited by the Nashik Municipal Corporation with the Collector, Nashik. Thereafter a Civil Application came to be filed being Civil Application No. 520 of 2010 on behalf of the Collector, Nashik in which an order came to be passed directing the Corporation to deposit the said amount in this Court to be deposited in the above Writ Petition No. 5151/2005. Accordingly the Collector has deposited the said amount in this Court in the account of the above writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of Court’s decision as above, the said amount should be directed to be given to the petitioner.

       In Court’s view, it would be appropriate to remit the amount back with accrued interest to the Collector, Nashik. Court accordingly direct the office to remit the amount back to the Collector, Nashik forthwith.

       The petitioner would be at liberty to make an application to the Collector, Nashik for claiming the said amount within a period of two weeks from date. If such an application is made by the petitioner, the Collector, Nashik or the concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer, alter carrying out enquiry, would disburse the amount in accordance with law.