1 wp1591.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETI TION NO.1591/2002
Rajkumar Raje Udaysinghrao S/o Raje
Pratap Singhrao Bhosale,
aged about 55 Yrs., Occu. Landlord,
R/o Bhonsle Palace, Mahal, Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Urban Land
Ceiling Act, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
Appellate Authority, Under Urban
Land Ceiling & Regulations Act, 1976,
Commissionerate, Nagpur.
3. The Additional Collector & Competent
Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Collectorate, Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 18.12.2017. ORLA JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:37 :::
2 wp1591.02
2. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Subordinate Authorities under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act of 1976") declaring that after deducting the land up to one ceiling unit i.e. 1500 Sq.Mtrs., apart from the land under structures, remaining area of land admeasuring 4519.35 Sq. Mtrs. as shown in the para 'F' of the final statement has to be treated as surplus vacant land and is required to be surrendered by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to retain the land under built up area and the land appurtenant to the structures existing in the properties in question.
3. The record shows that after the competent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner filed appeal challenging the decision of the competent authority, during the pendency of appeal, spot inspection was carried out by the competent authority through the City Survey Officer and the report of this spot inspection varied viz-a-viz earlier report. The Appellate Authority has not considered the subsequent report of spot inspection as the spot panchanama was carried out on the direction of competent authority after the competent authority had taken the decision in the matter, and the proceedings were subjudiced in appeal.
4. Be that as it may, the Act of 1976 is repealed in so far as its applicability in State of Maharashtra is concerned, on 29 th November, 2007. ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:37 :::
3 wp1591.02 Section 4 of the repealing Act lays down that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Act of 1976 pending immediately before the commencement of the repealed Act before any Court, Tribunal or any Authority shall abate. The Advocate for the petitioner has relied on Section 4 of the repealed Act and has submitted that the proceedings under the Act of 1976 stood abated on 28th November, 2007 and further steps / action under the provisions of the Act of 1976 cannot be taken by the respondent Authorities. The petitioner has filed an affidavit sworn on 9 th August, 2017 stating that steps as per Section 10(1), Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 are not taken. This fact is not denied by the respondents. Even the interim order passed by this Court on 2 nd May, 2002 which is continued and operates till date, supports the claim of the petitioner that he is in possession of the property in question. To support the contention that the proceedings under the Act of 1976 have abated and the respondents cannot now take any steps pursuant to the declaration by the impugned orders, the Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane and Ors. reported in 2008(5) ALL MR at page 537. The learned A.G.P. has not been able to dispute the submissions made by the Advocate for the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the following order is passed: ::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:37 :::
4 wp1591.02 (i) The impugned orders are set aside. (ii) It is held that as consequence of repealing of the Act of 1976,
further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders stand abated and further steps cannot be taken pursuant to the impugned orders.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 02/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2018 23:03:37 :::