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
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 The writ petition challenged orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.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 The writ petition challenged orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was later repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.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 Challenge to orders under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was later repealed.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Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides for the abatement of legal proceedings relating to orders made under the repealed Act.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.
"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 The Act has since been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999).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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.