Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande
Versus
Pune Municipal Transport & Others
Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2007
Decided on : 03-08-2010
AIR 1966 SC 1593; AIR 1970 SC 1576; AIR 1996 SC 1296; AIR 2005 SC 3581; (2005) 12 SCC 508; (2010) 3 SCC 621; AIR 1957 SC 344; AIR 1955 SC 298; AIR 2005 SC 954; (2009) 4 SCC 486; AIR 2001 SC 3431; AIR 1993 SC 2517; (1995) 6 SCC 31; AIR 1996 SC 1170; (1996) 6 SCC 405; (1996) 6 SCC 424; AIR 1997 SC 2703; (2000) 4 SCC 322; (2004) 4 SCC 460; (2005) 12 SCC 508; AIR 2005 SC 492 – Relied upon
(b) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(3) – Land vesting in the State free from all encumbrances – Open to State Government to change user of the land in the manner it chooses. (Para 13 to 15)
AIR 1977 SC 448; (1997) 2 SCC 627; AIR 1999 SC 436; AIR 2002 SC 2532; (2003) 1 SCC 335 – Relied upon
(c) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(3) – On acquisition and taking over possession – Land vests in State free from all encumbrances – User of acquired land – No concern of land owner – He becomes persona non grata –He has a right to get compensation only – He cannot claim right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever. (Para 16)
(d) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 34 r/w Section 50-B(4) – Limitation – No limitation is provided for exercise of revisional power – If this is taken literally, there will be no finality of acquisition proceedings – Expression ‘at any time’ – Revision must be filed within reasonable time – Reasonable time depends upon facts of the case – Instantly, revision filed after two decades (Para 19, 21, 23)
AIR 1969 SC 1297; (2003) 7 SCC 667; (2008) 16 SCC 299; (1996) 6 SCC 267; AIR 1997 SC 2366 – Relied upon
(e) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 34 – Contention that Land Ceiling Act having been repealed, orders passed thereunder cannot be enforced – Not tenable – Possession having been taken, repeal of the Act is of no consequence. (Para 28, 31)
AIR 1989 SC 674; AIR 1983 SC 643; (2000) 6 SCC 325; (2004) 13 SCC 452; (2007) 11 SCC 90 – Relied upon
(f) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 6(1) and (2) – Land acquired in 1978-79 – Land owner not filing any objection or appeal despite provision of first and second appeal – Revision petition filed after two decades and five years after Atia Mohammadi Begum – On ground of disputed land not included in Municipal area on coming into force of the Act – So included much later – No illegality in view of N. Audikesava Reddy overruling Atia Mohammadi Begum – Appellant not entitled to any relief. (Para 29, 33)
AIR 2002 SC 5 – Relied upon
AIR 1993 SC 2465 – Not correct law
Facts of the case:
The Act came into force on 17th February, 1976. On the said date, the suit land was not within urban limits, however it was included in the urban area residential zone only with effect from 17.05.1976, by extending the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The suit land was acquired under the Act, 1976, in the years 1978-1979 and its possession was taken and handed over to Pune Municipal Transport (for short PMT) for establishing a bus depot and staff quarters. In 1988, the bus depot was constructed on a part of the suit land, however, the appellant preferred a revision under Section 34 of the Act, 1976, dated 6.4.1998 contending that the land ought not to have been acquired under the Act, 1976, on the ground that on the date of commencement of the Act, 1976, i.e. 17.2.1976, the suit land was not within the limits of urban area. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2465 was relied upon.
The said application was allowed by the Hon’ble Minister, exercising his revisional powers by order dated 29.09.1998.
Being aggrieved, the PMT filed writ petition No. 1018 of 1999 before the High Court of Maharashtra and the said writ petition has been allowed vide Judgment and order dated 20.02.2006 in spite of the fact that the Act, 1976 stood repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with effect from 18.03.1999. Subsequent thereto, this Court in State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 5 overruled the Judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra).
Finding of the Court:
The appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever as per the law, as it exists today. The land once vested in the State cannot be divested. Once the land is vested in the State it has a right to change the user. The appellant cannot be heard raising grievance on either of these issues.
Result:
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order of Bombay High Court dated 20th February, 2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 1018 of 1999, filed by the respondent herein setting aside the order passed by the State Government withdrawing the proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as, "Act, 1976").
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the Act, 1976 was enacted to provide for 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. The said Act prescribed the maximum ceiling to which the land can be retained by the owner and determination of the surplus land and transfer thereof in favour of the State after drawing the final statement under Section 9 of the Act, 1976, and the State would acquire the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit under Section 10 of the Act, 1976. The Act came into force on 17th February, 1976. On the said date, the suit land was not within urban limits, however it was included in the urban area residential zone only with effect from 17.05.1976, by extending the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The suit land was acquired under the Act, 1976, in the years 1978-1979 and its possession was taken and handed over to Pune Municipal Transport (for short PMT) for establishing a bus depot and staff quarters. In 1988, the bus depot was constructed on a part of the suit land, however, the appellant preferred a revision under Section 34 of the Act, 1976, dated 6.4.1998 contending that the land ought not to have been acquired under the Act, 1976, on the ground that on the date of commencement of the Act, 1976, i.e. 17.2.1976, the suit land was not within the limits of urban area. In order to substantiate the claim, reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2465, wherein it has been held that for the purpose of the Act, 1976, the categorization of the land in the Master Plan in existence at the time of commencement of the Act into force was a relevant factor and any subsequent change in the Master Plan cannot be taken into consideration. The said application was allowed by the Hon'ble Minister, exercising his revisional powers by order dated 29.09.1998.
3. Being aggrieved, the PMT filed writ petition No. 1018 of 1999 before the High Court of Maharashtra and the said writ petition has been allowed vide Judgment and order dated 20.02.2006 in spite of the fact that the Act, 1976 stood repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called `Act 1999') with effect from 18.03.1999. Subsequent thereto, this Court in State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 5 overruled the Judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra). Hence, this appeal.
4. Sh. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court erred in interfering with the order of the Revisional Authority, which was fully justified being in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum (Supra). The provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1976, do not provide for any limitation and in case, proceedings had been initiated against the appellant in contravention of the Act, 1976 itself, the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 23.05.1979 was a nullity, and, therefore, was unenforceable and inexecutable. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Ganguly that originally, the land was allotted to PMT for establishing a bus depot, though the land was earmarked for residential purposes, thus, it was not permissible for the respondent authority to change the user of the land. If the land is vested in the State free from all encumbrances without any authority of law, the original tenure ho
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
