The repeal of ULC Act does not affect finalized proceedings; entitlement is limited to compensation, not restoration of land rights.

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Declare that the ULC proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority in ULC/D/SR 2703 stand abated in view of section 4 of the ULC repeal act 1999;

b) Declare that the Kabja Panchanama Annexure-E and Kabja Pavati Annexure-F are null and void ab initio;

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents No.2 to restore the names of the petitioners in R.S.No.203/4/4 measuring 3035.10 sq.mtrs. of angol and 30 gunthas in R.S.No.701 of Angol, Belagavi;

d) Grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity;

e) Direct the Respondent No.4 to pay compensation to the petitioners at the present market value for the extent of 2 Acres 9 Gunthas, 10 Annas and 11 paise in R.S.No.701 of Angol Belagavi as revealed by Annexure-J1 by a writ of mandamus;

f) Direct the Respondent No.5 to demolish the forest guest house and handover vacant possession of 30 Gunthas of land in R.S.No.701 of angol to the petitioners by a writ of mandamus.

2. The petitioners claim that one Yallappa S/o Devappa Dhakaluche was the owner of the vacant land in R.S.No.701, measuring 3 acres 3 guntas and R.S.No.203/4/4, measuring 30-guntas situated at Angol, Belagavi District. He expired on 29.09.2004, leaving behind petitioner No.1 who is his wife, petitioners No.1A to 1D who are his children, petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children of one Subhash Dhakaluche, who is brother of Yallappa Dhakaluche.

3. Shri Prasadkumar Gunaki., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

3.1. upon the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’ for brevity), the said Yallappa Dhakaluche filed a statement on 13.08.1976 before the competent authority under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the ULC Act. The competent authority held that the declarant held excess land of 10241.31 sq.mtrs in R.S.No.701 and 3035.10 sq.mtrs in R.S.No.203/4/4 of Angol village, Belagavi District.

3.2. Thereafter, a notification under subsection (1) of Section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued on 09.11.1985 and subsequently, a notification under subsection (2) of Section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued inviting objections from interested persons holding that the declarant held the above excess land.

3.3. On 06.10.1986, the competent authority issued a notification under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, to the effect that the excess vacant land as determined above stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

3.4. On 08.03.1988, a notice under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued calling upon the declarant to hand over possession to the Revenue Inspector.

3.5. Thereafter, a panchanama was prepared and possession of the excess vacant land was taken on 22.03.1988. The petitioners contend that the entire action by the authorities, is improper.

The land continues to be vested with the petitioners, the possession has not been taken by the concerned authorities. Even if the possession is taken, the same is improperly taken. No notice having been issued under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, the Revenue Inspector was not authorized to take possession. It is only the competent authority, who could take possession. On taking over possession of the excess vacant land, the declarant has not been paid adequate compensation.

3.6. The authorities have taken advantage of the litigation between the declarant and his family members, the