Rajkumar Raje Udaysinghrao ... vs State Thr.Dept.Of Urban Land ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9732 Bom

                                                                                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.

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.

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:

                                                     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.