Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4729/1995 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4729 of 1995
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
HARSHADBHAI
SOMABHAI & ANR
Versus
URBAN
LAND CEILING TRIBUNAL & ANR
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
KALPNABEN BRAHMBHATT for Petitioners
MR AJ DESAI AGP for
Respondents
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 02/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1 The
petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 10,
admeasuring 4 hectares and 764 sq. meters of land at village Dumbhal,
Taluka-Chouryasi of Surat District, who had sought exemption
under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act),
1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “ULC Act”) which was
granted by Order dated 12th June, 1980, subject to certain
conditions.
1.1 Later
on, the authorities under the ULC Act, upon inquiry, found that
some of the constructions were not completed and were raised only
upto the plinth level. It was also found that the premises were not
being used for residential purpose but were being used for
industrial purpose and, therefore, the order came to be passed by the
competent authority under the ULC Act on 30th September,
1992 (Annexure-D) cancelling the scheme under Section 21(1) of the
ULC Act allowed by Order dated 12th June, 1980 and
directing to initiate proceedings under Sections 6 to 11 of the ULC
Act.
1.2 The
said order was challenged before the Urban Land Tribunal by
preferring an Appeal No. Surat/104/92, which came to be dismissed by
Order dated 19th December, 1994 (Annexure-E) and, hence,
this petition seeking following reliefs:
(A) Be
pleased to admit this petition.
(B) Be
pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and order
against the respondents calling for the records and proceedings of
the case and after perusing the records and proceedings of the case
and after perusing the legality and propriety
of the orders passed by the respondent at Annexures D and E, be
pleased to quash and set aside the same and be pleased to restore
the order dated 12.6.1980.
(C) Be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and order under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents
directing them to quash and set aside the orders at Annexures D
and E and to restore the orders dated 12.6.1980 and further
forbearing them from taking any action against the petitioners
under the ULC Act.
(D) Be
pleased to grant interim relief staying the further proceedings
against the petitioners by the respondent No.1 in furtherance of
the Form No.1 filed by the petitioners under Section 6(1) of the
ULC Act in connection with the land bearing Survey No.10 of the
petitioners till the final disposal of this petition.
(E) Be
pleased to grant such other and further reliefs and to pass such
other further orders as may be deemed just and proper by the
Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(F) Be
pleased to allow this petition with costs.”
2 While
the petition was admitted, an order was passed for the parties to
maintain status quo, which is still operative.
2.1 By
enaction of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the
ULC Act, 1976 has been repealed w.e.f. 22.3.1999.
3 Section
4 of the said Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999,
runs as under:
“4.
Abatement of legal proceedings.–
All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made
under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement
of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall
abate:
Provided
that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to
sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such
proceedings are relatable to the land, 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.”
4 Now
examining the factual aspect, it is not in dispute that the
possession of the land has not been taken over by the Government
under the old ULC Act of 1976. In fact, the orders make it clear
that the proceedings under Sections 6 to 11 of the ULC Act, 1976
were ordered to be initiated and have yet not been initiated till
date. Therefore, in light of provisions contained in Section-4 of
the Repealing Act, this proceedings stands abated. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
pnnair
Top