Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2615 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.14223 OF 2009]
VINAYAK KASHINATH SHILKAR ... APPELLANT(s)
Versus
DY. COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
R.M. LODHA,J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner
before the High Court. In the Writ Petition, he prayed
that the proceedings in respect of the land bearing
survey No. 195, Hissa No. 2 (New 195/1) of Village
Parsik, District Thane under the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) on the
basis of the return filed by Nabibai Tukaram Patil may
be declared as abated in view of the repeal of the Act.
The appellant asserted that the possession of the
subject land was with him and at no point of time, his
possession was ever disturbed or attempted to be taken
by the respondents.
3. In response to the Writ Petition, a reply
2
affidavit was filed by the Additional Collector and
Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane
before the High Court. In paragraph 3 of that
affidavit, it is stated that notice under Section 10
(5) of the Act was issued to the appellant on February
25, 2005 calling upon the appellant to hand over the
possession of the subject land within 30 days from the
receipt of the said notice and, thus, the subject land
had vested with the State Government. In paragraph 10
of the said affidavit, it is stated that the Competent
Authority had already taken action under Sections
10(3) and 10(5) of the Act and, therefore, the subject
land is deemed to have vested in the State Government.
4. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that the
possession of the subject property had already been
taken by the Government of Maharashtra under the Act.
5. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the
appellant submitted that the finding of the High Court
that the possession of the property had been taken by
the Government of Maharashtra was factually incorrect.
He submitted that, as a matter of fact, even in the
reply affidavit before the High Court filed on behalf
of respondent No. 1, no such statement about possession
3
was made. The subject land although had vested in the
Government of Maharashtra on action having been taken
under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act, learned
senior counsel submitted but actual possession
continued with the appellant.
6. Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted and, in our view fairly that
there was nothing on record to indicate that actual
possession of the subject land had been taken over by
the respondents from the appellant. He further
submitted that the observation of the High Court that
the possession of the subject land had already been
taken by the Government of Maharashtra was based on the
assertion made in the reply affidavit filed on behalf
of respondent No. 1 that land had vested in the State
Government on action having been taken under Sections
10(3) and 10(5) of the Act and for no other reason.
7. The Act came to be repealed by the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short “
the Repeal Act”) on March 22, 1999. However, the State
of Maharashtra did not adopt the Repeal Act
immediately. On resolution having been passed by the
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly as well as Maharashtra
Legislative Council that w.e.f. November 29, 2007,
4
the Repeal Act came to be adopted and became operative
in the State of Maharashtra.
8. Section 2 of the Repeal Act reads as follows:
“2. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the
principal Act) is hereby repealed.”
9. Section 3A of the Repeal Act reads as follows:
“ 3 : Savings
(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not
affect-
(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-
section (3) of section 10, 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;
(b) the validity of any order granting exemption
under sub-section (1) of section 20 or any
action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any
judgment of any court to the contrary;
(c) any payment made to the State Government as
a condition for granting exemption under sub-
section (1) of section 20.
(2) Where-
(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the
State Government under sub-section (3) of
section 10 of the principal Act but possession
of which has not been taken over by the State
Government or any person duly authorised by the
State Government in this behalf or by the
competent authority; and
(b) any amount has been paid by the State
Government with respect to such land,
then, such land shall not be restored unless the
amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the
State Government.”
10. It is clear from the above provisions that where
5
the possession of the vacant land has not been taken
over by the State Government by any person duly
authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by
the Competent Authority, the proceedings under the Act
would not survive. Mere vesting of the vacant land
with the State Government by operation of law without
actual possession is not sufficient for operation of
Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act.
11. We are fortified in our view by a recent decision
of this Court in Ritesh Tewari and another vs. State
1
of Uttar Pradesh and others . This Court in Retiesh
1
Tewari considered the matter thus:
“Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants has submitted
that as the State Government had not taken
possession of th eland in exercise of its
powers under Section 10(6) of the 1976 Act, on
coming of the 1999 Act into force, the
proceedings stood abated and the respondents
have no business to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property.
We find full force in the submissions so made
by Shri Jayant Bhushan to a certain extent,
and hold that all proceedings pending before
any court/authority under the 1976 Act, stood
abated automatically on coming of 1999 Act
into force, provided the possession of the
land involved in a particular case had not
been taken by the State. Such a view is in
consonance with the law laid down by this
Court in Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public
1 (2010) 10 SCC 677
6
Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P. (2000)6SCC
325, Ghasitey Lal Sahu vs. Competent Authority
(2004)13 SCC 452, Mukarram Ali Khan vs. State
of U.P. (2007)11 SCC 90 and Sulochana
Chandrakant Galande vs. Pune Municipal
Transport (2010)8 SCC 467.”
12. In view of the legal position enunciated by this
1
Court in Ritesh Tewari and the factual situation that
the possession of the subject land has not been taken
by the Government of Maharashtra, we are satisfied that
the appellant was entitled to the relief in terms of
para 9 (b) in the Writ Petition and the High Court
ought to have declared that the proceedings under the
Act in relation to the subject property stood abated.
Now it is declared accordingly.
13. Appeal is allowed as above with no order as to
costs.
.....................J.
(R.M. LODHA)
.....................J.
(H.L. GOKHALE)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 29, 2012.
7