Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL, D.M.Dharmadhikari
RAMESHCHANDRA SHAMJIBHAI RANIGA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A.6678 of 1999
Decided On : 07/18/2000
As held by the learned Single Judge, the word `proceedings as used in Sec. 4 of 1999 Act may include writ proceedings in the High Court and the law can be made to render them infructuous but the power of the constitutional Court of judicial scrutiny cannot be held to have been taken away by such Legislation. The constitutional power of High Court or Supreme Court to decide whether, on the facts and legal position in a given case, the proceedings before it would abate or not, can never be taken away by ordinary law. Court also do not find any such intention of the Legislature in enacting Sec. 4 in the Act of 1999. Judicial scrutiny of actions taken and order passed under Repealed or Repealing Act would always be permissible and the Court, Tribunals and authorities can decide whether on the facts and law in a given case, the proceedings before it had abated or been rendered infructuous or not. To the above extent, the provision under Sec. 4 have to be read down.
[Para 45]
(b) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Sec. 3(1)(a) - Provision of Repealing Act - Classification - Discrimination - Art. 14 - Absence of reasonable nexus with object and purpose of Act - Amended Act caused discrimination among land owner - Discrimination - Classification.
By virtue of provisions of Sec. 3(1) of the Repealing Act, 1999 read with Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, such use or disposal of said vacant land acquired and possessed by the State is permissible in law. The classification of vested lands and the land owners into two categories, i.e., those from whom possession is taken and others from whom possession is not taken is reasonable. It has nexus with the object and purpose of the Repealing Act of 1999. The purpose is very clearly spelled out from its provisions, the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Guidelines issued subsequently. The charge of discrimination based on Art. 14 levelled by the petitioners therefore has to be negatived.
[Para 39]
[Para 46] (c) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976) - Repeal of Act - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Secs. 3(1)(a) and 4 - Challenge to provision of Secs. 3(1)(a) & 4 of Repealing Act - Constitutionality of the provision - Challenge of provision being discriminatory and unreasonable - Object and purpose of Repeal Act unbridle power - Lack of guidelines Sec. 4 - Abatement of all proceeding. The provisions in Sec. 4 of the Repealing Act of 1999 are also valid. Construed reasonably, as discussed above, they mean that the question whether, on the facts and law, in a given case, the pending proceedings before a Court, Tribunal or Authority under the two enactments, would abate or not, is a question open to judicial scrutiny. [Para 46]
( 1 ) THE order in this Special Civil Application shall also decide the connected matters in which common questions of law have been raised.
( 2 ) THE petitioners question the constitutional validity of Section 3 (1) (a) and Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as `the Repealing Act, 1999 ).
( 3 ) THE Repealing Act, 1999 is enacted by the Parliament on 22-3-1999 wherein by Section 2, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed.
( 4 ) THE Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 shall hereinafter be referred to as the `repealed Act, 1976.
( 5 ) FOR the purpose of considering the several grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners in assailing the provisions of the Repealing Act, 1999, it is necessary to examine the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Repealed Act, 1976.
( 6 ) THE preamble contains the Objects and Reasons for enacting and enforcing the Repealed Act, 1976 and the said preamble reads as under:-"an Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculations and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good. "the Repealed Act, 1976 was brought into force to give effect to the directive principles of State Policy contained in Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. The said Article contains a mandate to the State that"the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-- (B) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. "
( 7 ) THE purpose of the Repealed Act, 1976 was with laudable object, to prevent concentration of urban lands in the hands of wealthy and to make available the land in urban areas for providing shelter to the poor and needy. Section 4 of the Act of 1976 prescribes different ceiling limits for holding land in urban agglomeration categorised as A to D in Sch. I of the Act. Section 6 of the Act of 1976 requires every person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file a statement before the competent authority within a prescribed time. Under Section 8, the competent authority on the basis of statements filed has to prepare a draft statement as regards vacant land held by each person in excess of ceiling limit. Under Section 9, after considering various objections received, the competent authority has to make a final statement to determine the extent of vacant land held by a person in excess of ceiling limit. Section 10 provides acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. Subsection (3) of Section 10 provides that the excess land determined by the competent authority shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State and such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date specified. Subsection (5) and (6) of Section 10 contain the provisions laying down the procedure for taking possession of the vacant land which has vested in the State Government. The said subsections of Section 10 are relevant for the purpose of considering the ground urged against the Repealed Act, 1976 and the said provisions therefore need reproduction in full:"10 (5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
