Full Judgment Text
2006:BHC-AS:12847-DB
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4782 OF 1995
Vasantdata Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Limited. .. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Competent Authority and
Deputy Collector, Urban Land
Ceiling Act, Sangli.
3. The Collector of Sangli,
District Sangli.
4. Sidram Sattappa Daphalapure,
since deceased through his legal
heirs and representatives :
a) Shivalingava Sidram Daphalapure
b) Shantadevi Chanbasappa Mahajan. .. Respondents
Mr.S.G. Surana for petitioner.
Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for res.Nos.1 to 3.
Mrs.Anjali Helekar for res.Nos.4(a) & 4(b).
-------
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : 11th July 2006 DATED : 11th July 2006 DATED : 11th July 2006
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.)
1. Heard Mr.Surana in support of this
petition. Mrs.Thakur, AGP appears for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs.Helekar for respondent No.
4(b).
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-2-
2. (i) The petitioner herein is a
Co-operative Sugar factory registered under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and
functioning in Sangli District. Original
respondent No.4 owned certain agricultural lands
bearing Survey Nos.152/1B and 152/2 in the
erstwhile village Sangli, which is now a part of
the Sangli Municipal Corporation.
(ii). Respondent No.4 has since expired and his
wife i.e. respondent No.4(a) and his married
daughter respondent No.4(b) were joined as the
respondents to this petition. We are told that
respondent No.4(a) has subsequently expired and
respondent No.4(b) has contested the petition.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this
petition are as follows:-
. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 ("the ULC Act" for short) covered the
urban agglomeration of Sangli City. The Act came
into force on 17th February 1976 and thereupon
respondent No.4 filed the requisite statement
under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 13th April
1976. In his statement he showed these two
parcels of lands as the agricultural lands.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-3-
Subsequently the competent Authority under the ULC
Act i.e. respondent No.2 herein prepared a draft
statement and called upon the original respondent
No.4 to file objections under Section 8(3) of the
ULC Act. After considering the objections, the
competent Authority held on 30th October 1978 that
respondent No.4 was holding excess vacant land
admeasuring 17163.60 sq. meters. Accordingly,
the order was published in the Government Gazette
on 19th April 1979.
4. The competent Authority called upon
respondent No.4 to hand over the possession on
17th January 1986 and took possession on 29th
January 1986. Thereupon the land was allotted to
the petitioner-Karkhana and the
petitioner-Karkhana was put in physical
possession. The petitioner-Karkhana was required
to pay the purchase price under Section 11 of the
ULC Act which was calculated at Rs.1,20,831.75.
The petitioner deposited the amount with the
Authorities concerned. It is material to note
that the petitioner-Karkhana has also used this
land after obtaining possession only for
agricultural purpose, though as stated by
Mr.Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner-Karkhana, the Karkhana has brought
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-4-
about improvements in the said parcels of lands.
5. Respondent No.4 filed an Appeal being
Appeal No.4 of 1993 challenging the order dated
30th October 1978 passed by the competent
Authority. Respondent No.3 partly allowed the
Appeal and remanded it back to respondent No.2 for
deciding it afresh in accordance with law. The
competent Authority had a fresh look at the matter
and took the view that the land was an
agricultural land and directed that possession
thereof be restored to respondent No.4. This
order was passed on 21st October 1994. The
petitioner-Karkhana preferred an Appeal against
that order to respondent No.3-Collector who is the
Appellate Authority and the Appeal came to be
dismissed by the impugned order dated 23rd July
1995. The present petition seeks to challenge
that order. It was admitted on 10th October 1995
and interim order was granted in terms of prayer
clauses (c) and (d) whereby the enforcement of the
impugned order has been stayed and the peaceful
use and enjoyment of the suit land by the
petitioner has been continued. This has been on
the condition that the petitioner does not create
any third party interest.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-5-
6. It has so transpired that thereafter when
the matter came up before another Division Bench
for final hearing on 7th March 2006, the Division
Bench passed an order appointing a Committee of
three members consisting of Additional Collector,
Sangli, Deputy Collector, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwada
Municipal Corporation and the Tahsildar, Miraj,to
record findings on the question with respect to
the status of the subject land at the relevant
time. The Committee has made its Report on 13th
April 2006 and has given its findings to the
following effect:-
" Finding of the Committee may be
submitted for kind perusal of the Hon.
High Court in short is as below:
1. Survey number 152 (survey number 152/1
& 152/2 sub-division of survey number
152) are in Sangli Municipal Council area
as on 17/2/76.
2. As per Master Plan sanctioned by the
Government on 19/1/1966 survey number 152
was in Sangli Municipal Council area but
not included in Master Plan.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-6-
3. As per the draft development plan
published on 6/1/1972 survey number 152
was in Sangli Municipal Council area and
shown in residential zone.
4. Above draft development plan was
finally sanctioned by the Government on
28/3/1977 in which survey number 152 was
included in agriculture zone."
7. During the pendency of this petition, the
petitioner took out one Civil Application bearing
No.651 of 2006 to add certain grounds and prayer
which are objected by Mrs.Helekar appearing for
respondent 4(b). However, in the interest of
justice, we have allowed them by passing a
separate order.
8. Mr.Surana, learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner-Karkhana, submitted that what is
material is the date on which the Act came into
force. That date is 17th February 1976.
According to him, on that date the concerned
parcels of lands were notified in the residential
zone as per the draft development and, therefore,
the Authorities concerned were in error in holding
that they form part of the agricultural land and,
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-7-
therefore, will have to be excluded while
calculating the vacant land. In this behalf, he
relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt) vs. State of Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt) vs. State of Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt) vs. State of
U.P. & ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 546 U.P. & ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 546 wherein U.P. & ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 546
the Apex Court held that the Authorities cannot by
any action, after the Act came into force,
increase the area of excess vacant land or
decrease or alter it in any manner whatsoever. It
is further held that the vacant land will have to
be determined as on the date on which the Act came
into force i.e. on 17th February 1976 and not any
time thereafter.
9. As far as this position is concerned, it
has been clarified by the Apex Court in its
subsequent judgment in the case of State of A.P. State of A.P. State of A.P.
& ors. vs. N.Audikesava Reddy & ors. reported & ors. vs. N.Audikesava Reddy & ors. reported & ors. vs. N.Audikesava Reddy & ors. reported
in (2002) 1 SCC 227 in (2002) 1 SCC 227. In paragraph 14 the Apex in (2002) 1 SCC 227
Court in terms held that the master plan prepared
as per law in force even subsequent to enforcement
of the Act is to be taken into consideration to
determine whether a particular piece of land is
vacant land or not and, to this extent, Atia
Begum’s case (supra) is not correctly decided.
What is material to note is that in the instant
case the master plan has been sanctioned on 28th
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-8-
March 1977 and under it survey No.152 was included
in agricultural land. The original Authority
which decided the statement filed by respondent
No.4 arrived at its decision subsequent thereto
i.e. on 30th October 1978. As on that date the
master plan of the town was clear, namely, that
this parcel of land was not in the residential
zone but was in the agricultural zone. That being
so, the Authorities cannot be faulted in coming to
the conclusion that they have arrived at, and the
arguments advanced by Mr.Surana, cannot be
accepted.
10. For the reasons stated above, we do not
find any merit in the petition. The petition,
therefore, stands dismissed. Interim order will
stand vacated. Rule discharged accordingly.
11. Mr.Surana appearing for the petitioner
makes a request that since the petitioner is in
possession of the land for last over 20 years, the
interim order granted by this Court during the
pendency of the petition, be continued for a
further period of eight weeks so as to enable the
petitioner to challenge the order passed by this
Court. Mrs.Helekar appearing for respondent
No.4(b) objects to this request. In any case, the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-9-
procedure to take possession will also take its
own time and that being so, we accept the request
of Mr.Surana. The interim order granted by this
Court will continue to operate for a further
period of eight weeks hereafter.
12. Mr.Surana points out that when the
purchase price was determined, the petitioner
deposited the amount of Rs.1,20,831.75 with the
Authorities concerned. It is, however, seen from
the order dated 21st October 1994 passed by the
competent Authority that respondent No.4 has not
collected the compensation deposited. That being
the position, it will be open to the petitioner to
claim this compensation amount lying with the
State Government. Mrs.Helekar on the other hand
submits that during the last 20 years the
petitioner has made use of this land and
respondent No.4(b) has in fact suffered because
the land was not available for her family for
cultivation. It will be open for respondent
No.4(b) to claim mesne profits on that footing, if
she so desires by taking appropriate steps in that
behalf.
13. Mr.Surana states that the amount deposited
with the State Government will not be withdrawn
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-10-
until the possession of the land is handed over.
14. There will be no order as to costs.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4782 OF 1995
Vasantdata Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Limited. .. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Competent Authority and
Deputy Collector, Urban Land
Ceiling Act, Sangli.
3. The Collector of Sangli,
District Sangli.
4. Sidram Sattappa Daphalapure,
since deceased through his legal
heirs and representatives :
a) Shivalingava Sidram Daphalapure
b) Shantadevi Chanbasappa Mahajan. .. Respondents
Mr.S.G. Surana for petitioner.
Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for res.Nos.1 to 3.
Mrs.Anjali Helekar for res.Nos.4(a) & 4(b).
-------
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : 11th July 2006 DATED : 11th July 2006 DATED : 11th July 2006
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.)
1. Heard Mr.Surana in support of this
petition. Mrs.Thakur, AGP appears for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs.Helekar for respondent No.
4(b).
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-2-
2. (i) The petitioner herein is a
Co-operative Sugar factory registered under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and
functioning in Sangli District. Original
respondent No.4 owned certain agricultural lands
bearing Survey Nos.152/1B and 152/2 in the
erstwhile village Sangli, which is now a part of
the Sangli Municipal Corporation.
(ii). Respondent No.4 has since expired and his
wife i.e. respondent No.4(a) and his married
daughter respondent No.4(b) were joined as the
respondents to this petition. We are told that
respondent No.4(a) has subsequently expired and
respondent No.4(b) has contested the petition.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this
petition are as follows:-
. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 ("the ULC Act" for short) covered the
urban agglomeration of Sangli City. The Act came
into force on 17th February 1976 and thereupon
respondent No.4 filed the requisite statement
under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 13th April
1976. In his statement he showed these two
parcels of lands as the agricultural lands.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-3-
Subsequently the competent Authority under the ULC
Act i.e. respondent No.2 herein prepared a draft
statement and called upon the original respondent
No.4 to file objections under Section 8(3) of the
ULC Act. After considering the objections, the
competent Authority held on 30th October 1978 that
respondent No.4 was holding excess vacant land
admeasuring 17163.60 sq. meters. Accordingly,
the order was published in the Government Gazette
on 19th April 1979.
4. The competent Authority called upon
respondent No.4 to hand over the possession on
17th January 1986 and took possession on 29th
January 1986. Thereupon the land was allotted to
the petitioner-Karkhana and the
petitioner-Karkhana was put in physical
possession. The petitioner-Karkhana was required
to pay the purchase price under Section 11 of the
ULC Act which was calculated at Rs.1,20,831.75.
The petitioner deposited the amount with the
Authorities concerned. It is material to note
that the petitioner-Karkhana has also used this
land after obtaining possession only for
agricultural purpose, though as stated by
Mr.Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner-Karkhana, the Karkhana has brought
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-4-
about improvements in the said parcels of lands.
5. Respondent No.4 filed an Appeal being
Appeal No.4 of 1993 challenging the order dated
30th October 1978 passed by the competent
Authority. Respondent No.3 partly allowed the
Appeal and remanded it back to respondent No.2 for
deciding it afresh in accordance with law. The
competent Authority had a fresh look at the matter
and took the view that the land was an
agricultural land and directed that possession
thereof be restored to respondent No.4. This
order was passed on 21st October 1994. The
petitioner-Karkhana preferred an Appeal against
that order to respondent No.3-Collector who is the
Appellate Authority and the Appeal came to be
dismissed by the impugned order dated 23rd July
1995. The present petition seeks to challenge
that order. It was admitted on 10th October 1995
and interim order was granted in terms of prayer
clauses (c) and (d) whereby the enforcement of the
impugned order has been stayed and the peaceful
use and enjoyment of the suit land by the
petitioner has been continued. This has been on
the condition that the petitioner does not create
any third party interest.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-5-
6. It has so transpired that thereafter when
the matter came up before another Division Bench
for final hearing on 7th March 2006, the Division
Bench passed an order appointing a Committee of
three members consisting of Additional Collector,
Sangli, Deputy Collector, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwada
Municipal Corporation and the Tahsildar, Miraj,to
record findings on the question with respect to
the status of the subject land at the relevant
time. The Committee has made its Report on 13th
April 2006 and has given its findings to the
following effect:-
" Finding of the Committee may be
submitted for kind perusal of the Hon.
High Court in short is as below:
1. Survey number 152 (survey number 152/1
& 152/2 sub-division of survey number
152) are in Sangli Municipal Council area
as on 17/2/76.
2. As per Master Plan sanctioned by the
Government on 19/1/1966 survey number 152
was in Sangli Municipal Council area but
not included in Master Plan.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-6-
3. As per the draft development plan
published on 6/1/1972 survey number 152
was in Sangli Municipal Council area and
shown in residential zone.
4. Above draft development plan was
finally sanctioned by the Government on
28/3/1977 in which survey number 152 was
included in agriculture zone."
7. During the pendency of this petition, the
petitioner took out one Civil Application bearing
No.651 of 2006 to add certain grounds and prayer
which are objected by Mrs.Helekar appearing for
respondent 4(b). However, in the interest of
justice, we have allowed them by passing a
separate order.
8. Mr.Surana, learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner-Karkhana, submitted that what is
material is the date on which the Act came into
force. That date is 17th February 1976.
According to him, on that date the concerned
parcels of lands were notified in the residential
zone as per the draft development and, therefore,
the Authorities concerned were in error in holding
that they form part of the agricultural land and,
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-7-
therefore, will have to be excluded while
calculating the vacant land. In this behalf, he
relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt) vs. State of Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt) vs. State of Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt) vs. State of
U.P. & ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 546 U.P. & ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 546 wherein U.P. & ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 546
the Apex Court held that the Authorities cannot by
any action, after the Act came into force,
increase the area of excess vacant land or
decrease or alter it in any manner whatsoever. It
is further held that the vacant land will have to
be determined as on the date on which the Act came
into force i.e. on 17th February 1976 and not any
time thereafter.
9. As far as this position is concerned, it
has been clarified by the Apex Court in its
subsequent judgment in the case of State of A.P. State of A.P. State of A.P.
& ors. vs. N.Audikesava Reddy & ors. reported & ors. vs. N.Audikesava Reddy & ors. reported & ors. vs. N.Audikesava Reddy & ors. reported
in (2002) 1 SCC 227 in (2002) 1 SCC 227. In paragraph 14 the Apex in (2002) 1 SCC 227
Court in terms held that the master plan prepared
as per law in force even subsequent to enforcement
of the Act is to be taken into consideration to
determine whether a particular piece of land is
vacant land or not and, to this extent, Atia
Begum’s case (supra) is not correctly decided.
What is material to note is that in the instant
case the master plan has been sanctioned on 28th
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-8-
March 1977 and under it survey No.152 was included
in agricultural land. The original Authority
which decided the statement filed by respondent
No.4 arrived at its decision subsequent thereto
i.e. on 30th October 1978. As on that date the
master plan of the town was clear, namely, that
this parcel of land was not in the residential
zone but was in the agricultural zone. That being
so, the Authorities cannot be faulted in coming to
the conclusion that they have arrived at, and the
arguments advanced by Mr.Surana, cannot be
accepted.
10. For the reasons stated above, we do not
find any merit in the petition. The petition,
therefore, stands dismissed. Interim order will
stand vacated. Rule discharged accordingly.
11. Mr.Surana appearing for the petitioner
makes a request that since the petitioner is in
possession of the land for last over 20 years, the
interim order granted by this Court during the
pendency of the petition, be continued for a
further period of eight weeks so as to enable the
petitioner to challenge the order passed by this
Court. Mrs.Helekar appearing for respondent
No.4(b) objects to this request. In any case, the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-9-
procedure to take possession will also take its
own time and that being so, we accept the request
of Mr.Surana. The interim order granted by this
Court will continue to operate for a further
period of eight weeks hereafter.
12. Mr.Surana points out that when the
purchase price was determined, the petitioner
deposited the amount of Rs.1,20,831.75 with the
Authorities concerned. It is, however, seen from
the order dated 21st October 1994 passed by the
competent Authority that respondent No.4 has not
collected the compensation deposited. That being
the position, it will be open to the petitioner to
claim this compensation amount lying with the
State Government. Mrs.Helekar on the other hand
submits that during the last 20 years the
petitioner has made use of this land and
respondent No.4(b) has in fact suffered because
the land was not available for her family for
cultivation. It will be open for respondent
No.4(b) to claim mesne profits on that footing, if
she so desires by taking appropriate steps in that
behalf.
13. Mr.Surana states that the amount deposited
with the State Government will not be withdrawn
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::
-10-
until the possession of the land is handed over.
14. There will be no order as to costs.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:47:47 :::