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

2008 Supreme(Raj) 1763

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
Yaswant Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2146 of 1998.
Decided On : 26-03-2008

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Shri R.S. Purohit with Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A.

The legal proceedings relating to orders made under a repealed Act abate as per Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

Headnote:

Order 22 Rule 3 - Substitution of Legal Heirs - The court allowed the substitution of legal heirs and representatives of the deceased petitioner as per the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC. The subsequent application for substitution of name was also allowed. The petitioner's application to dispense with service of notice of other parties was also granted. The writ petition challenged orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The court observed that the proceedings had become abated as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999 and disposed of the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed applications for substitution of legal heirs, representatives, and to dispense with service of notice. The writ petition challenged orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was later repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that the proceedings had become abated as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the substitution of legal heirs and representatives, and the application to dispense with service of notice. It observed that the proceedings had become abated as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999 and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues: Substitution of legal heirs, representatives, and dispensation of service of notice. Challenge to orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was later repealed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides for the abatement of legal proceedings relating to orders made under the repealed Act. It considered the possession of the disputed land and concluded that the proceedings had become abated as the State had not taken possession over the surplus land.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, observing that the proceedings had become abated as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999.

JUDGMENT

1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application on 1st April, 2002 under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC for substitution of legal heirs and representative of deceased petitioner Yaswant Singh. It is prayed in the application that Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Yaswant Singh and Smt. Prabha Devi D/o Shri Yaswant Singh may be substituted in place of deceased-petitioner Yaswant Singh. It appears that subsequently another application dated 12th September, 2005 was filed for substitution of name of Prabha Devi in place of Smt. Laxmi Devi, who also died. The subsequent application dated 12.09.2005 had already been allowed by this Court on 20.10.2005, therefore, there is no need to pass any further order on the application dated 01.04.2002 and the same stands disposed of.

2. The petitioner has also filed another application dated 14.12.2007 to dispense with service of notice of Smt. Indra Devi and Smt. Saroj Devi. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed and service of Smt. Indra Devi and Smt. Saroj Devi is also dispensed with. The application dated 14.12.2007 stands disposed of.

3. The petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.11.1997 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur, and order dated 24.05.1997 passed by the Court of Additional Director & Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling Department, Jaipur, under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ULCAR Act has already been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999), and as per Section 4 of the Act of 1999 the present proceedings have become abated, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with observation that these proceedings have become abated.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation (AIR 2000 SC 3415 ) held as under:-

"2. The Act has since been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999). The Legislature of State of U.P. has since adopted the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by a resolution as required by Article 252 (2) of the Constitution. The Repealing Act has since come into force in the State of U.P. with effect from 18.3.1999. The appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 31.10.1999 in this Court and on that basis, it has been prayed that the present proceedings be abated. The State has not filed any reply to this affidavit.

3. Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 provides as under:

"4. Abatement of legal proceedings.- All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate;

Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land 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."

4. In the counter-affidavit not a word has been said about the possession of the surplus land. In fact, it is maintained by the appellant that the possession is still with the appellant who was also granted an interim order regarding "status quo".

5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the State had taken possession over the surplus land, the present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed land is still in possession of the petitioners. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate also.In view of the above, the present proceedings have become abated in view of Sec




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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