{"id":170450,"date":"2009-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-21T22:42:00","modified_gmt":"2017-07-21T17:12:00","slug":"indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V.C. Daga, Mridula Bhatkar<\/div>\n
                                                                :1:\n\nbgp\n                      IN       THE          HIGH          COURT             OF      JUDICATURE              AT        BOMBAY\n\n                                    CIVIL                              APPELLATE                                  JURISDICTION\n\n                                    WRIT                  PETITION                  NO.4241                 OF              2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                             \n           Vithabai                                              Bama                                                   Bhandari\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n           Indian                           Inhabitant,                                 residing                              at\n           Building                    No.1,                          3rd                  Floor,                       Bombay\n           Housing                           Board                                 Building,                             Bandra\n           Reclamation,                                                Bandra                                             (East),\n           Mumbai - 400 050.                                                                       ..Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n           Versus\n\n\n           1.                               State                                 of                                 Maharashtra\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n           2.           Deputy                      Collector               &                  Competent             Authority\n                Ulhasnagar           ig                           Urban                                         Agglomeration,\n                having                      his                   office                         at                Ulhasnagar\n                Civil Complex                                                                       ..Respondents\n                                   \n           Mr.Milind              Sathe,               Senior                Advocate                with              Mr.Chirag\n           Balsara               i\/b.Kanga                  &                  Co.                  for                petitioner.\n           Mr.V.A.Sonpal,                              AGP                           for                             respondents.\n         \n\n                                                       CORAM                 :-                         V.C.DAGA        &\n                                                                             MRS.MRIDULA                       BHATKAR,JJ.\n      \n\n\n\n                      JUDGMENT              RESERVED            ON                         :     31ST       MARCH,          2009\n\n                      JUDGMENT               PRONOUNCED                     ON         :        16TH         APRIL,         2009\n     \n\n\n\n\n           JUDGMENT                                   (PER                             :                           V.C.DAGA,J.)\n<\/pre>\n
           1.                        The petitioner, in this petition filed under<\/p>\n
           Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is seeking<\/p>\n
           following declaration;\n<\/p>\n
                                        That          it         be                         declared           that            all\n                           proceedings\/notifications                    and                  notices                       issued\n                           under        Section        9        and     10             of       the         Urban           Land\n                           (Ceiling              and        Regulation)                Act,       1976        in          respect\n                           of       the       land       situated        at               bearing       survey           No.34\/6\n                           Koliwali,              Taluka          Kalyan                           District                Thane\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>\n                                                               :2:<\/span>\n\n                       admeasuring                   2008.00      sq.mtrs.              stand        abated      in\n                       view            of           Section   4     of     the     Urban      Land          Ceiling\n                       (Repeal)         Act,         1999     and        the       respondents         are     now\n                       not             entitled            to   resort      to      the     provisions           of\n                       the             Urban             Land     (Ceiling       and     Regulation)            Act\n                       1976            in           respect       of           the         petitioners        land;\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                           \n     FACTUAL BACKDROPS:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n     .                              In order to appreciate the grievance of the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     petitioner, few relevant introductory facts needs to<\/p>\n
     be noticed at the outset.\n<\/p>\n
     2.                            Petitioner herein is a holder of land<\/p>\n
     admeasuring                    16490          sq.mtrs.                 under         Plot         bearing      No.33,<\/p>\n
     34(6) and 35\/15 at village Koliwali, Taluka Kalyan,<\/p>\n
     District Thane.\n<\/p>\n
     3.                            On 3rd October, 1983, the Deputy Collector &<\/p>\n
     Competent                      Authority,         Ulhasnagar              passed           an          order   under<\/p>\n
     Section               8(iv)         of         the                Urban           Land          (Ceiling         and<\/p>\n
     Regulation)               Act,         1976       (for         short       “the      said        ULC            Act”)<\/p>\n
     in             Case                No.ULC\/ULN\/SR-19                Koliwali         and         declared         that<\/p>\n
     petitioner is holding surplus land as per the details<\/p>\n
     given below:\n<\/p>\n
     ——————————————————<\/p>\n
\n     Sr.No.                 Area in                       Area to be                          Area to be\n\n\n\n\n\n                            sq.mtrs. retained with                                            acquired in\n                                                     the declarant                               sq.mtrs.\n<\/pre>\n
     ——————————————————\n<\/p>\n
          33                     2230                        2230                                      --\n     35\/15                         900                         900                                     --\n     34\/6                     13360                          4370                                    8990\n<\/pre>\n
     ——————————————————\n<\/p>\n
     Total                    16490                          7500                                    8990\n<\/p>\n
     ——————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                       :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.                              On 10th July, 1989, petitioner has filed an<\/p>\n
     application            for           exemption                 under            Section            20               of           the         said<\/p>\n
     Act               offered             the          said         excess           land            for           providing                    sites<\/p>\n
     and           services,              construction                of             core             and                 construction             of<\/p>\n
     tenements                         governed                by           the           Maharashtra                    Ownership               Flats<\/p>\n
     Act,1963 or by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies<\/p>\n
     Act,1960.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                              The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority,<\/p>\n
     Ulhasnagar                after              having                considered                   the                 application              has<\/p>\n
     passed          an             order            under              Section          20           of                the           ULC           in<\/p>\n
     No.ULC\/ULN\/20-NEW\/SR-138                                         and             allowed                the                           application<\/p>\n
     of               the<\/p>\n
                                    applicant<\/p>\n
     of 40 sq.mtrs. each i.e. 1,180.04 sq.mtrs. to be
\n                                                          with              the       condition               that            31            tenements<\/p>\n
     sold to Government nominees at fixed rate.\n<\/p>\n
     6.                              The petitioner, thereafter preferred an<\/p>\n
     application                  proposing                to         develop            the         land          so                 as            to<\/p>\n
     implement              development                 scheme                with             the           office              of           Kalyan<\/p>\n
     Dombivli               Municipal                Corporation                  (for               short                “the              KDMC”).\n<\/p>\n
     The           KDMC                   has            informed                     the             petitioner                 about            the<\/p>\n
     reservation                    of           Sy.No.34\/6             for          development                   as         per                 the<\/p>\n
     development plan and rejected the proposal of the<\/p>\n
     applicant for development of the land.\n<\/p>\n
     7.                              Being aggrieved by the orders dated 3rd<\/p>\n
     October,               1983                  and                31st         July,         1989,                    petitioner               has<\/p>\n
     filed           an                  appeal         under         Section          33        of          the          ULCR                 before<\/p>\n
     the              Additional                 Collector,           Thane            which            was               allowed                  on<\/p>\n
                                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                        :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
     23rd            May,                  2001.                    The            Deputy              Collector              and               Competent<\/p>\n
     Authority, Ulhasnagar was directed to hold fresh<\/p>\n
     enquiry under Section 8(iv) of the ULC Act.\n<\/p>\n
     8.                                After fresh enquiry conducted by respondent<\/p>\n
     No.2                    bearing             No.ULC\/ULN\/6(1)SR-19,                                  Koliwali,                  on                   19th<\/p>\n
     September,                   2001                 it       was               declared             by                respondent                     No.2<\/p>\n
     that            petitioner                   is                 holding                 2008                    sq.mtrs.                         surplus<\/p>\n
     land.                On                  30th              September,                               2003,                  the             constituted<\/p>\n
     attorney                of                the                  petitioner                vide          letter                  dated               30th<\/p>\n
     June, 2003 sought for implementation of a scheme under<\/p>\n
     Section 20 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     9.<\/p>\n
                                       Pursuant to the application, the Additional<\/p>\n
     Collector               and                 Ex-Officio,                           Deputy                     Secretary,                    Ulhasnagar<\/p>\n
     Urban                Agglomeration,                            Thane                               issued                      the                 order<\/p>\n
     ULC\/ULN\/20-NEW\/SR-138                                     dated                   31st            July,            1989,                        wherein<\/p>\n
     petitioner                   was           directed              to               handover              7           tenements              of        40<\/p>\n
     sq.mtrs.                      each                 i.e.                 266.23              sq.mtrs.                     to               Government<\/p>\n
     nominees                     at      fixed             rate.                      Thereafter                on          17th                    October,<\/p>\n
     2003            petitioner                had                  filed          a          proposal                 for                IOD            and<\/p>\n
     Commencement                              Certificate                  for               construction                   work             on          the<\/p>\n
     plot            of                 land         and        started                the           construction                     work               and<\/p>\n
     also            filed                a          proposal           dated                17th        October,                       2003              for<\/p>\n
     development                  of             scheme             with           KDMC,               which            the         KDMC                 has<\/p>\n
     approved                the               proposed                      development                          vide                  its             order<\/p>\n
     No.KDMC\/DP\/BP\/Koliwali\/473\/194.                                                                           The                                       said<\/p>\n
     constructions was completed within the time prescribed<\/p>\n
     for the same.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                              :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.                             On 5th January, 2006, petitioner vide her<\/p>\n
     letter          requested                     respondent                   No.2               to                take               possession                 of<\/p>\n
     the             flats,               along                      with                  affidavit                  mentioning                        description<\/p>\n
     of              the           lands             to          be          handed               over          to             the         said          authority.\n<\/p>\n
     During            the              submission                    of             the           letter             dated                 5th              January,<\/p>\n
     2006,             petitioner                     was                   informed                            by                   the                department<\/p>\n
     through                      her              constituted              attorney               that           there                was                     some<\/p>\n
     exchange                   of                   correspondence                   with          regard                to                    the              said<\/p>\n
     property                  such                       as            Show                           cause                         notice                  bearing<\/p>\n
     No.ULC\/ULN\/T-5\/SR-138                                  dated                    11th                        April,                     2005                 was<\/p>\n
     issued            to               the                petitioner,                 which                   ultimately                     resulted             in<\/p>\n
     an           order<\/p>\n
                                        dated<\/p>\n
     exemption granted under Section 20 of the ULC Act vide
\n                                                                 25th                April,                 2005                     withdrawing                  the<\/p>\n
     order No.ULC\/ULN\/20-NEW\/SR-138 dated 31st July, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     11.                             The Petitioner, after having received the said<\/p>\n
     order                   through                           her          constituted             attorney                           vide                     letter<\/p>\n
     dated           23rd               February,                     2006                 requested                 respondent                       No.2         to<\/p>\n
     carry                  out          the              site          visit          since             the          work                 was           completed<\/p>\n
     and willingness was shown to hand over the requisite<\/p>\n
     flats but this request did not yield any result.\n<\/p>\n
     12.                             The Petitioner was served with the notice<\/p>\n
     dated              28th                   June,             2007           by          the        respondent                          No.2                under<\/p>\n
     Section            10(5)                 of               the           ULC                       Act                calling                 upon            the<\/p>\n
     petitioner                 to                  hand                    over            possession               of                 the                   surplus<\/p>\n
     vacant                   land         to             respondent                 No.2          due           to             non                     compliance<\/p>\n
     of        the            condition               for             exemption                under             Section                   20           of        the<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                         :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
     Act.             The               said             notice                  is           the               subject               matter           of<\/p>\n
     challenge in the present petition filed under Article<\/p>\n
     226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     RIVAL SUBMISSIONS<\/p>\n
     13.                         Mr.Milind Sathe, learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing                   on          behalf          of               petitioner,           in             support          of                his<\/p>\n
     pleadings,                 contends                    that          in           pursuance               of                the                order<\/p>\n
     given                  by           Additional                Commissioner                      vide              its          order           dated<\/p>\n
     23rd            April,                   2001,          the              respondent            No.2                     conducted                 an<\/p>\n
     inquiry<\/p>\n
     accordingly
\n                            bearing
\n                                   ig has
\n                                                       No.ULC\/ULN\/6(1)SR-19<\/p>\n
                                                   passed                an            order              dated
\n                                                                                                                             Kolivali<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                             19th
\n                                                                                                                                                      and<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                               September,<\/p>\n
     2001 wherein it was held that petitioner was holding<\/p>\n
     2008 sq.mtrs. surplus vacant land.\n<\/p>\n
     14.                         The learned Senior Counsel further contended<\/p>\n
     that                 the          petitioner             was               surprised                to          receive               a       notice<\/p>\n
     dated                20th          June,            2007                 issued          by              respondent              No.2          under<\/p>\n
     Section        10(5)               of            the           said               Act               directing              the             petitioner<\/p>\n
     to            handover              possession                of           the          surplus               vacant           land               to<\/p>\n
     respondent                  No.2            due               to                   non              compliance                   of              the<\/p>\n
     conditions for exemption under Section 20 of the said<\/p>\n
     Act.\n<\/p>\n
     15.                         Mr.Sathe also contends that the possession of<\/p>\n
     the           said                land        has         not             been          taken            by        respondent                  No.2<\/p>\n
     and           the                petitioner                   continues            to                    remain                in             actual<\/p>\n
                                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                             :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
     physical                   possession              of           the              same.                      In          the             meanwhile             by<\/p>\n
     Notification                      dated                       29th               November,                  2007              published                       by<\/p>\n
     respondent                    No.1                      the               Urban                        Land                       (Ceiling                   and<\/p>\n
     Regulation)                   Repeal                     Act,1999                         (in           short                       “the                  Repeal<\/p>\n
     Act”)          was                brought                into                force                     in              the                State               of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra                 as              such                respondent                             No.2                  is             now              not<\/p>\n
     entitled              to               take         possession                    of      the           said                      land.                     The<\/p>\n
     petitioner                    since              continues                  to           be             in            possession                  of         the<\/p>\n
     said            land,                   the        proceedings                    under            Section              9                  and               the<\/p>\n
     notices         and               notifications                    under               Section                   10               of          the           said<\/p>\n
     Act            stand                  abated            in          accordance                of        Section               4              in              the<\/p>\n
     Repeal                     Act          and             that              the            respondent                   No.2              cannot             resort<\/p>\n
     to<\/p>\n
     petitioner’s
\n                    the<\/p>\n
                                   land.\n<\/p>\n
                                  provisions             of\n\n                                                                    In\n                                                                         the           said\n\n                                                                                        support\n                                                                                                     Act\n\n                                                                                                             of\n                                                                                                                      with\n\n                                                                                                                                   his\n                                                                                                                                       respect           to       the\n\n                                                                                                                                                         contention,\n                                      \n     Mr.Sathe                    relied          on          the           judgment                of            this            Court           in               the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. Vs. AdditionalCollector<\/p>\n
     & Competent Authority & Ors. 2008(5) Bom.C.R.746.\n<\/p>\n
                                          Bom.C.R.746<\/p>\n
     16.                              In reply, Mr.Sonpal submits that as per the<\/p>\n
     scheme               of               the        ULC            Act,          Section              9        is        the                 point             upto<\/p>\n
     which                 all                   proceedings                   after          filing             of          the             return                by<\/p>\n
     the                  land             owner              are              travelled,               a             declaration                 of           excess<\/p>\n
     land            follows.                            Once               excess            land            is                   determined,                    the<\/p>\n
     land owner has two options. The first option is; the<\/p>\n
     land owner can surrender surplus land which can be<\/p>\n
     taken            over                   by                   the                  Government                          following                      procedure<\/p>\n
     prescribed                  under           Section             10           of          the           ULC              Act.                             Another<\/p>\n
     option           is;                         the         land             owner           can           apply                     for               exemption<\/p>\n
                                                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                            :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
     under Section 20 of the ULC Act which can be granted<\/p>\n
     subject to the provisions of the ULC Act.\n<\/p>\n
     17.                          According to Mr.Sonpal, these two different<\/p>\n
     options                  have                      different                         consequences.                             In            his<\/p>\n
     submission                   in                     the           first          option,              the          proceedings               are<\/p>\n
     required             to                  go          through              the         gamut           of               Section            10(1),<\/p>\n
     10(2),              10(3),                    10(5)             and          10(6)             and           the       possession             of<\/p>\n
     the          surplus              land         is         required              to         be         taken          over         by         the<\/p>\n
     Government. Once the possession is taken, the title<\/p>\n
     of the land unequivocally vests in the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     18.<\/p>\n
     exemption           is<\/p>\n
                                  In the second option, where Section 20<\/p>\n
                                     required                 to           be            applied,            it          can           be     applied<\/p>\n
     once          the                  stage            of         Section          9         is         crossed                and          surplus<\/p>\n
     land           is                   determined.                         The           application                     for              exemption<\/p>\n
     under           Section                       20(1)              is         required             to          be       considered             by<\/p>\n
     the          State                  Government                          and          if         allowed,                  exemption           is<\/p>\n
     granted                   subject             to              certain           terms             and              conditions.              The<\/p>\n
     breach thereof entails consequences provided under sub<\/p>\n
     section (2) of Section 20 of the ULC Act.\n<\/p>\n
     19.                          According to Mr.Sonpal, in case in hand , the<\/p>\n
     petitioner                   was              granted                 exemption                  under              Section                20(1)<\/p>\n
     of           ULC                Act            vide              order                    dated              31st           July,          1989<\/p>\n
     (Exhbit-“B”). The relevant condition Nos.16 and 17<\/p>\n
     there of read as under:\n<\/p>\n
                               “If                   at      any                     time,       the      Deputy                   Collector     &
\n                    Competent                      Authority                      is         satisfied        that                   there       is
\n                    a       breach                      of                       any      of      conditions,                    the         Deputy<\/p>\n
                                                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               :9:<\/span><\/p>\n
                       Collector               &         Competent          Authority       has        authority
\n                       to           withdraw      by      an     order,        the    exemption            order
\n                       from       the      date      specified      in        the     case.            Provided
\n                       that            before      making      any        such      order,      the      Deputy
\n                       Collector           &            Competent       Authority           shall           give
\n                       reasonable            opportunity          to       the          person            whose
\n                       lands          are          exempted                  making               representation<\/p>\n
                       against                   the                    proposed                    withdrawal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   When      any  such    exemption       withdrawn       or     deemed    to<\/p>\n
                       be         withdrawn        under               these           conditions,       the
\n                       provisions         of       Chapter-III          of      the          said        Act
\n                       shall        apply     to   the    lands      as      if     the     lands        has
\n                       been              exempted              under                 this             order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20.                             Mr.Sonpal submits that the above order dated<\/p>\n
     31st               July,                        1989          in              general             and              conditions                    mentioned<\/p>\n
     therein                are                in                 the          nature            of          contract                  between               the<\/p>\n
     State                  Government                    and            the              petitioner.                         The            violation       of<\/p>\n
     conditions<\/p>\n
     contract.<\/p>\n
\n                                     of\n                                         \n                                           In\n                                                            exemption\n\n                                                           his            submission\n                                                                                          order              constituted\n\n                                                                                                       reference                to\n                                                                                                                                      breach                 of\n\n                                                                                                                                                      provisions\n                                        \n     of          Chapter-III               with                 regard               to            the               procedure                for         taking\n\n     possession                            constitutes                    integral                    part               of            contract             (not\n\n     integral                     part         of           the           statute)                as           such             he           submits        that\n      \n\n\n     the           provisions                       of             the             Repealing            Act                   shall             not          be\n   \n\n\n\n     applicable                    so          far          the          subject             land             is          concerned.                          In\n\n     other                  words,                        the           statutory            requirement                              provided                in\n\n     Chapter                 III          of             ULC            Act          to          take          possession               of               surplus\n\n\n\n\n\n     land              is          not         applicable                to          the          facts            of         case        in              hand.\n\n     In          his               submission                    the                possession                  is              to             be         taken\n\n     consequent                         upon             breach               of           the           terms                and        conditions          of\n\n\n\n\n\n     the                    exemption                    order            without                 going                 requiring              to        follow\n\n<\/pre>\n
     the statutory provisions engrafted in section 10 of<\/p>\n
     the ULC Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                    :10:<\/span><\/p>\n
     21.                        Mr.Sonpal relying upon the ULC Repeal Act,<\/p>\n
     1999            in             general            and         Section             3         Sub       Section           (1)(b)         in<\/p>\n
     particular          to        urge             that            the               revocation             of           exemption         as<\/p>\n
     well           as              action            for         taking          possession            of         the        land          as<\/p>\n
     per            Clause              17       of          the          exemption                order          dated          31st    July,<\/p>\n
     1989           is            saved         and          is     not          at        all      affected               by           Repeal<\/p>\n
     Act. He also tried to press into service Section 6 of<\/p>\n
     the General Clauses Act to buttress his submissions.\n<\/p>\n
     22.                  Mr.Sonpal             further             submits                 that           the            petitioner       has<\/p>\n
     violated             the                conditions                   of          exemption            as              per           order<\/p>\n
     dated        31st          July,         1989            he           thus            cannot            take          advantage        of<\/p>\n
     his<\/p>\n
     retain
\n                  own<\/p>\n
                                   wrong.\n<\/p>\n
                          possession           of           the\n                                                                  The\n\n                                                                        land.\n                                                                               petitioner          is\n\n                                                                                                  He,\n                                                                                                           not\n\n                                                                                                                thus,\n                                                                                                                           entitled\n\n                                                                                                                             submits\n                                                                                                                                            to\n\n                                                                                                                                          that\n                                 \n<\/pre>\n
     the petition is liable to be dismissed leaving it open<\/p>\n
     for the State to take possession of the subject land.\n<\/p>\n
     23.                        Before                      proceeding to                                         consider                rival<\/p>\n
     submissions, it is necessary to turn to the statutory<\/p>\n
     provisions relevant for deciding the issue involved.\n<\/p>\n
     STATUTORY PROVISIONS<\/p>\n
     24.                        Before proceeding further with discussion, it<\/p>\n
     may be proper to notice the relevant provisions for<\/p>\n
     breach of statutory limbs:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                             :11:<\/span><\/p>\n
     25.                       The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal<\/p>\n
     Act,      1999        (for           short      “the          Repeal        Act”)              came          into           force<\/p>\n
     on            18th    March,          1999.             Section        3     of          the      said         Act          deals<\/p>\n
     with the provisions of ULC Act which are saved and<\/p>\n
     reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
                                    Section          9   and       10    and     20      of     the        said    Act            read
\n                     as                                                                                                         under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                    9. Final Settlement:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  After the disposal of the objections, if any,
\n                     received under sub-section (4) of section 8,
\n                     the competent authority shall make the
\n                     necessary alterations in the draft statement<\/p>\n
                     in accordance with the orders passed on the
\n                     objections aforesaid and shall determine the
\n                     vacant land held by the persons concerned in<\/p>\n
                     excess of the ceiling limit and cause a copy
\n                     of the draft statement as so altered to be
\n                     served in the manner referred to in
\n                     sub-section (3) of section 8 on the person<\/p>\n
                     concerned and where such vacant land is held
\n                     under a lease, or a mortgage, or a
\n                     hire-purchase agreement, or an irrevocable
\n                     power of attorney, also on the owner of such
\n                     vacant land.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      \n\n\n                                    10.              Acquisition        of     vacant         land     in         excess            of\n                     ceiling                                               limit                                                     :\n   \n\n\n\n                                    (1)    As     soon    as     may     be     after   the     service                    of       the\n                     statement                under         section         9         on          the                           person\n                     concerned,             the        competent             authority          shall                            cause\n                     a               notification      giving        the       particulars        of                                the\n\n\n\n\n\n                     vacant            land       held     by      such      person      in      excess                              of\n                     the              ceiling            limit             and              stating                               that-\n\n                                    (i)           such   vacant         land   is  to           be     acquired            by      the\n                     concerned                     State                  Government;                                              and\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 (ii)         the          claims     of     all    person    interested         in\n                     such          vacant        land        may         be        made          by           them\n                     personally            or             by              their           agents            giving\n                     particulars             of        the        nature        of      their             interests\n                     in          such         land,         to        be         published       for            the\n                     information          of          the           general          public         in          the\n                     Official      Gazette         of         the       State        concerned        and        in\n                     such         other          manner            as           may         be         prescribed.\n\n<\/pre>\n
                                   (2) After considering the claims of the
\n                     persons interested in the vacant land, made to<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                         :12:<\/span><\/p>\n
      the competent authority in pursuance of the
\n      notification published under sub-section (1),
\n      the competent authority shall determine the
\n      nature and extent of such claims and pass such
\n      order as it deems fit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (3) At any time after the publication of the<\/p>\n
      notification under sub-section(1) the
\n      competent authority may, by notification
\n      published in the Official Gazette of the State<\/p>\n
      concerned, declare that the excess vacant land
\n      referred to the notification published under
\n      sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such
\n      date as may be specified in the declaration,
\n      be deemed to have been acquired by the State<\/p>\n
      Government and upon the publication of such
\n      declaration, such land shall be deemed to have
\n      vested absolutely in the State Government free
\n      from encumbrances with effect from the date so
\n      specified.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                   (4)        During    the       period    commencing       on     the          date\n      of          publication         of                  the          notification             under\n      sub-section\n                ig        (1)        and             ending          with          the           date\n      specified             in        the                 declaration         made              under\n      sub-section                                                                                 (3)-\n\n                   (i)        no       person      shall     transfer    by    way     of         sale,\n              \n      mortgage,                gift,         lease        or        otherwise        any        excess\n      vacant          land             (including                  any          part          thereof)\n      specified             in                 the       notification       aforesaid              and\n      any           such             transfer       made        in          contravention           of\n      this           provision         shall       be      deemed        to      be      null      and\n      \n\n      void;                                                                                        and\n\n<\/pre>\n
                    (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be<\/p>\n
      altered the use of such excess vacant land.\n<\/p>\n
                    (5) where any vacant land is vested in the
\n      State Government under sub-section (3), the
\n      competent authority may by notice in writing,<\/p>\n
      order any person who may be in possession of
\n      it to surrender or deliver possession thereof
\n      to the State Government or to any person duly
\n      authorised by the State Government in this
\n      behalf within thirty days of the service of
\n      the notice.\n<\/p>\n
                   (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply
\n      with an order made under sub-section (5), the
\n      competent authority may take possession of the
\n      vacant land or cause it to be given to the
\n      concerned State Government or to any person
\n      duly authorised by such State Government in
\n      this behalf and may for that purpose use such
\n      force as may be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                          :13:<\/span><\/p>\n
                                Explanation:- In this section, in sub- section
\n                    (1) of Sec.11 and in sections 14 and 23,
\n                    “State Government”, in relation to –\n<\/p>\n
                                (a) any vacant land owned by the Central
\n                    Government, means the Central Government;\n<\/p>\n
                                (b)      any      vacant     land         owned                    by        any     State
\n                    Government         and        situated        in       the                     Union         Territory
\n                    or       within           the      local    limits    of                       a           cantonment<\/p>\n
                    declared        as       such         under        section                     3          of       the
\n                    Cantonments              Act,1924,         means                                that             State
\n                    Government.”\n<\/p>\n
                                   20.          Power                to   exempt :           (1)           Notwithstanding<\/p>\n
                    anything             contained                  in     any   of             the              foregoing
\n                    provisions                  of                        this                 Chapter                   –\n<\/p>\n
                                  (a)        where         any        person holds vacant                    land        in
\n                    excess           of           the           ceiling      limit      and           the             state
\n                    Government               is            satisfied,      either       on            its             own<\/p>\n
                    motion              or             otherwise,        that,       having        regard                to
\n                    the          location             of      such      land,       the           purpose               for
\n                    which      ig     such      land       is      being       or      is     proposed          to       be
\n                    used            and             such        other      relevant       factors       as              the
\n                    circumstances               of       the       case        may        require,        it              is
\n                    necessary               or        expedient         in        the       pubic                  interest
\n                    so        to           do,         that      Government             may,           by            order,<\/p>\n
                    exempt,         subject         to         such         conditions,         if          any,         as
\n                    may            be             specified       in      order,       such      vacant               land
\n                    from              the             provisions               of             this               Chapter;\n<\/p>\n
                                  (b) where any person holds vacant land in<\/p>\n
                    excess of the ceiling limit and the State
\n                    Government, either on its own motion or
\n                    otherwise, is satisfied that the application<\/p>\n
                    of the provisions of this Chapter would cause
\n                    undue hardship to such person, that Government
\n                    may by order, exempt, subject to such
\n                    conditions, if any, as may be specified in the
\n                    order, such vacant land from the provisions of<\/p>\n
                    this Chapter:\n<\/p>\n
     .                        Provided that no order under this clause shall
\n     be made unless the reasons for doing so are recorded
\n     in writing.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   3.            Saving         :         (1)   The     repeal      of     the     principal\n                    Act                     shall                         not                    affect                    -\n\n                                  (a)        the       vesting       of any         vacant        land     under\n                    sub-section                (3)      of       Section      10,       possession             of\n                    which        has         been        taken       over       the      State        Government\n                    or          any             person      duly    authorised      by          the         State\n                    Government                  in     this      behalf      or      by       the      competent\n                    authority;\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>\n                                                             :14:<\/span>\n\n                                   (b)          the      validity      of              any       order          granting\n                      exemption                   under       sub-section           (1)       of       Section        20\n                      or             any                    action                        taken             thereunder,\n                      notwithstanding                any       judgment            of      any      court             to\n                      the                                                                                      contrary;\n\n                                  (c)               any    payment     made    to    the   State                     Government\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                            \n                      as          a                  condition     for      granting     exemption                        under\n                      sub-section                      (1)              of                Section                           20.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                                      (2) Where -\n\n<\/pre>\n
                                   (a) any land is deemed to have vested in the
\n                      State Government under sub-section (3) of
\n                      Section 10 of the principal Act but possession<\/p>\n
                      of which has not been taken over by the State
\n                      Government or any person duly authorised by
\n                      the State Government in this behalf or by the
\n                      competent authority; and<\/p>\n
                                      (b)       any        amount      has        been          paid   by          the        State<\/p>\n
                      Government                 with           respect                   to                such              land<\/p>\n
                                   then, such land shall not be restored unless<\/p>\n
                      the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to
\n                      the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     CONSIDERATION :\n<\/p>\n
     26.                       Before considering the rival submissions, it<\/p>\n
     would                be         useful          to     go         into        the           legislative         background<\/p>\n
     of the subject Legislation giving rise to the present<\/p>\n
     legal controversy.\n<\/p>\n
     LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND :\n<\/p>\n
     27.                       There was a demand for imposing a ceiling on<\/p>\n
     urban                     property,            also         especially,            after          the               imposition<\/p>\n
     of           a        ceiling             on          agricultural        lands             by            the            State<\/p>\n
     Governments.                  With              the           growth                of            population              and<\/p>\n
     increasing                urbanization,                a                    need                  for                  orderly<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                            :15:<\/span><\/p>\n
     development                 of                urban                   area         was          also        felt.                         It           was,<\/p>\n
     therefore,                    considered                   necessary                    to           take            measures                            for<\/p>\n
     exercising                       social           control                    over              the           scarce                  resource            of<\/p>\n
     urban           land                  with                 a        view           to                ensuring                  its                equitable<\/p>\n
     distribution                      amongst                  the               various              sections                of                        society<\/p>\n
     and also avoiding speculative transactions relating to<\/p>\n
     land in urban agglomerations.\n<\/p>\n
     28.                          With a view to ensuring uniformity in<\/p>\n
     approach,               Government                             of          India             addressed          to                    all               the<\/p>\n
     State                  Governments                    in               this             regard,             eleven               States               could<\/p>\n
     pass                 resolutions                under                     Article                      252(1)                        of                 the<\/p>\n
     Constitution empowering Parliament to undertake<\/p>\n
     legislation in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
     29.                          The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill<\/p>\n
     was            passed                   by       both               the        Houses             of        Parliament                and               the<\/p>\n
     statute              came                 on          the           statute             books          as       the            Urban                  Land<\/p>\n
     (Ceiling                and             Regulation)                 Act,           1976              (33        of             1976)                    (the<\/p>\n
     ULC              Act).                           In             its           application,             State          of                       Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     was            one               of       the         States              which          had         adopted          the            ULC                Act<\/p>\n
     under                clause             (1)           of            Article              252           of           the                        Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     On the date of such adoption, the said Act became<\/p>\n
     applicable in the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
     Scheme of the ULC Act<\/p>\n
     30.                          Having seen the legislative background now, it<\/p>\n
     is         necessary               to            examine                      Scheme                 of             the              ULC               Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                              :16:<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section               2                of         the            ULC            Act           provided                           for                  definitions,<\/p>\n
     whereas               section                     3          laid            down            that             no          person             shall               be<\/p>\n
     entitled                  to       hold                vacant                land            in           excess                 of            the          ceiling<\/p>\n
     limit.                     Section                    4                  provided                 for          the                    ceiling                 limit,<\/p>\n
     whereas               section                 5                    provided                              for                consequences                        for<\/p>\n
     transfer              of                   vacant            land.                  Sections                   6          and           7                  required<\/p>\n
     every           person                      holding                     vacant              land          in            excess                  of              the<\/p>\n
     ceiling               limit        at          the              commencement                        of             the          Act            to               file<\/p>\n
     statement                       before                       the                            competent                        authority                      having<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction                          in               prescribed                   form                      specifying                                   location,<\/p>\n
     extent,        value              and                 such               other               particulars                    of               every             kind<\/p>\n
     of           land              held          by           him.                 Section              8          of         the          Act                 provided<\/p>\n
     for<\/p>\n
     land           held
\n                         preparation<\/p>\n
                                      in
\n                                                   of<\/p>\n
                                                           excess
\n                                                                     draft<\/p>\n
                                                                             of
\n                                                                                     statement<\/p>\n
                                                                                      the          ceiling
\n                                                                                                                   as<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                         limit
\n                                                                                                                                 regards<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                      so                  as
\n                                                                                                                                                                  vacant<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                                      to<\/p>\n
     serve           on               the                  person             concern             to          enable             him                 to              file<\/p>\n
     objections.                                Section                 9           provided                  for              consideration                          of<\/p>\n
     the             objections                        and                        preparation                 of                     final                     statement<\/p>\n
     consequent                       on            the                 decision                  of               objections                  preferred              by<\/p>\n
     the             land            holder                with             copy            to           the              person              concerned              and<\/p>\n
     where          such             vacant                land               was                held               under                  lease,              mortgage,<\/p>\n
     hire-purchase agreement or an irrevocable power of<\/p>\n
     attorney also to the owner of such vacant land.\n<\/p>\n
     31.                            Once the proceeding crosses the stage of<\/p>\n
     Section                9         and           the              land           in           excess                 of           the          ceiling           limit<\/p>\n
     is         determined,             then                   the            three               options                     were               given             under<\/p>\n
     the ULC Act to the person holding excess vacant land<\/p>\n
     as enumerated hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          :17:<\/span><\/p>\n
     32.                            On the above canvas one of such options was to<\/p>\n
     permit                   the           State            Government                    to            acquire          vacant              land         in<\/p>\n
     excess               of                     the             ceiling            limit           exercising             powers                      under<\/p>\n
     section                  10        and                award              compensation                  under            section           11         of<\/p>\n
     the        ULC            Act.                        In           other              words,           a           notification            acquiring<\/p>\n
     the          excess                    vacant              land          by          the       State                 Government                     was<\/p>\n
     required            to             be                  issued                 under                 Section              10(1).                     All<\/p>\n
     persons                   interested              in              such              vacant            land           were                      required<\/p>\n
     to           file              their              claims                 at                  this            stage            and                 upon<\/p>\n
     determination of their claims, a declaration vesting<\/p>\n
     the property in the State free from all encumbrances<\/p>\n
                  declaration<\/p>\n
     was to follow with effect from a date specified in<\/p>\n
     the                                              as         per          Section             10(2)           and        (3)         of              the<\/p>\n
     ULC              Act.                   Section              11           thereof            laid          down          the                   principle<\/p>\n
     on which the amount payable for such acquisition was<\/p>\n
     to be determined.\n<\/p>\n
     33.                            The another option open to the person holding<\/p>\n
     vacant           land                  in                  excess         of          the       ceiling         limit               was               to<\/p>\n
     apply            under                      section               20(1)             for       exemption,                      which                 the<\/p>\n
     State                Government                       was             competent                 to            consider            and             grant,<\/p>\n
     subject              to           such                conditions               as           may         be           specified            in        the<\/p>\n
     order and exempt the land from the operation of<\/p>\n
     Chapter III of the ULC Act.\n<\/p>\n
     34.                            The third option was to apply to the Competent<\/p>\n
     Authority,                under                       Section            21           to        exclude                   excess                   land<\/p>\n
     from         acquisition                    in              certain                 cases,             where              the              concerned<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                        :18:<\/span><\/p>\n
     person undertook to build dwelling units for the<\/p>\n
     accommodation of the weaker section of the society.\n<\/p>\n
     35.                                     In the event, the State Government was<\/p>\n
     satisfied                  that               any               of               the             conditions,                 subject                 to            which<\/p>\n
     any                    exemption                    was              granted               under              clause            (a)           or                   clause<\/p>\n
     (b)          of              sub-section                      (1)           of            section              20,            was              not              complied<\/p>\n
     with               by                     any            person,             it          was         competent               for                   the              State<\/p>\n
     Government                        to            withdraw,                        by              order,              such                exemption                  after<\/p>\n
     giving                 a                reasonable                       opportunity                    to             the               affected                 person<\/p>\n
     for               making                            a                    representation                        against                   the                    proposed<\/p>\n
     withdrawal.                                    In              the          event               of           withdrawal                 of                     exemption<\/p>\n
     under<\/p>\n
     to
\n                       Section<\/p>\n
                       get<\/p>\n
                                        attracted.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   20(2)                 the\n\n                                                                          So            far\n                                                                                            provisions\n\n                                                                                                     as\n                                                                                                                     of\n\n                                                                                                                  other\n                                                                                                                                   Chapter\n\n                                                                                                                                provisions                of\n                                                                                                                                                              III        were\n\n                                                                                                                                                                           the\n                                             \n     ULC                    Act              are         concerned,                    it       is        not           necessary             for             us            to\n\n     dwell                        on               those                 provisions                  since           they              are           not              relevant\n\n<\/pre>\n
     for determination of the legal controversy involved<\/p>\n
     herein.\n<\/p>\n
     36.                                     The Scheme of the ULC Act, unequivocally,<\/p>\n
     demonstrated                       that                 once               the                exemption                   was                granted               under<\/p>\n
     section                             20(1)                subject                   to            certain              terms                  and               conditions<\/p>\n
     and               if                    breach                      thereof             was          committed               by                the                person<\/p>\n
     holding                       order             of              exemption,                 then              such          order             was                    open<\/p>\n
     to            withdrawal                                following                       principles                   of                 natural                   justice.\n<\/p>\n
     Once                         that             order                 of           exemption                   was           withdrawn                            resulting<\/p>\n
     in                     cancellation                      of              exemption,                  then            the           provisions                          of<\/p>\n
     Chapter                           III          including                  section               10            thereof             were             to                 get<\/p>\n
     attracted.                              The                proceedings                          were                         required                     to           go<\/p>\n
                                                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                      :19:<\/span><\/p>\n
     through           the             gamut            of         section              10               leading             to              acquisition<\/p>\n
     of           vacant                 land          in     excess              of     the         ceiling                   limit                and,<\/p>\n
     ultimately, possession thereof was required to be<\/p>\n
     taken under section 10(5) of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Repeal Act, 1999<\/p>\n
     37.                           The Parliament has passed the Urban Land<\/p>\n
     (Ceiling                 and                Regulation)                Repeal           Act,             1999           (No.15                   of<\/p>\n
     1999)                  which          received          an          assent            from               the          President                  of<\/p>\n
     India             on              22nd       March,           1999           and        was          published                     in           the<\/p>\n
     Gazette<\/p>\n
     dated        22nd
\n                             of<\/p>\n
                                  March,
\n                                        ig     India,<\/p>\n
                                                 1999.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             Extraordinary<\/p>\n
                                                                         Since
\n                                                                                           Part<\/p>\n
                                                                                           then
\n                                                                                                         II<\/p>\n
                                                                                                          this\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                      –      Section<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                          Repeal             Act
\n                                                                                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                      of<\/p>\n
     1999         is          applicable.                    But            that           ordinance                 did          not           become<\/p>\n
     applicable                   in             the         State           of         Maharashtra                  since         it               was<\/p>\n
     not                adopted             under            Article              252(2)            of              the                  Constitution<\/p>\n
     of           India.                Sub       Section          (3)        of         Section              1       of       the                 Urban<\/p>\n
     Land                   (Ceiling                &                         Regulation)                           Repeal                    Act,1999<\/p>\n
     ((hereinafter referred to as “Repeal Act”) reads as<\/p>\n
     under :\n<\/p>\n
                                          “1.(3)          It       shall be deemed to have come                            into
\n                       force                  in       the      States        of       Haryana        and       Punjab     and
\n                       in                all       the       Union        territories      on       the     11th           day<\/p>\n
                       of                January,1999           and        in      any       other       State          which
\n                       adopts                  this             Act       under        clause       (2)     of          article
\n                       252                of             the     Constitution        on      the      date      of        such
\n                       adoption;                           and       the       reference        to      repeal       of     the
\n                       Urban                      land         (Ceiling         and        Regulation)                Act,1976
\n                       shall,              in           relation           to     any          State           or       Union
\n                       territory,                mean            the        date      on      which            this        Act
\n                       comes               into           force         in          such          State         or      Union
\n                       territory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           :20:<\/span><\/p>\n
     38.                             Perusal of the said provision shows that so<\/p>\n
     far            as                the                 State          of         Maharashtra               is                concerned,                 the<\/p>\n
     Repeal                Act         was           to         come           into      force             on            such          date         as     the<\/p>\n
     legislature                of               State                   of      Maharashtra                         would                   pass            a<\/p>\n
     resolution                      adopting                 the             Repeal              Act               under              Clause(2)            of<\/p>\n
     Article             252               of             the                    Constitution                      of               India.                The<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra                            Legislative                  Assembly                 and                the                       Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Legislative                        Council               passed                a         resolution                      for                    adopting<\/p>\n
     the Repeal Act in the State of Maharashtra with effect<\/p>\n
     from 29.11.2007.\n<\/p>\n
     Effect of Repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and<\/p>\n
     Regulation) Act,1976 :-\n<\/p>\n
     39.                             Where certain land of a person was declared as<\/p>\n
     surplus                    under            the            Urban            Land             Ceiling                 Act,1976             but         the<\/p>\n
     possession            of           the            said            surplus           land              was                not          taken          over<\/p>\n
     by               the            prescribed               authority              under           the             Act             the                 effect<\/p>\n
     of           repeal              of             the        ULCA,            1976         under                     the            urban             Land<\/p>\n
     (Ceiling              and                  Regulation)                    Repeal                          Act,                   1999               under<\/p>\n
     Section         4           would               be           that           the         legal                 proceedings                would         be<\/p>\n
     abated.                            However,                  if          the        possession                     was            already           taken<\/p>\n
     over by the prescribed authority, the same shall not<\/p>\n
     abate.\n<\/p>\n
     40.                             The Repeal Act, 1999 has two saving clauses in<\/p>\n
     Section               3         and        4.                Section            3       of         the             Act         provides               that<\/p>\n
     the principal Act i.e., the original act of 1976 shall<\/p>\n
     not affect.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          :21:<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            (a)    the      vesting       of any         vacant      land       under
\n                        Section                10(3),           possession       of     which      has           been
\n                        taken,              over         by      the    State     Government           or         any
\n                        person             duly        authorised       by          the      State        Government
\n                        in             this         behalf         or         the        competent          authority.\n<\/p>\n
                                            (b)       the     validity       of        any      order                                                granting
\n                        exemption                    under           Section     20(1)     or      any                                                 action<\/p>\n
                        taken                     thereunder,         not                withstanding                                                    any
\n                        judgment               of       any     Court         to     the      contrary;                                                  and<\/p>\n
                                            (c)                any     payment    made      to   the   State                               Government,
\n                        as                  a                   condition    for      granting     exemption                                     under<\/p>\n
                        Section                20(1)               other        related        and       like                                  matters.\n<\/p>\n
     41.                          Section 4, provides for the abatement of all<\/p>\n
     proceedings          relating                 to          any           order             made             or          deemed              to        be<\/p>\n
     made            under                    the                    principal                 Act                   pending                   immediately<\/p>\n
     before the Commencement of the repeal Act, before any<\/p>\n
     Court, tribunal or other authority.\n<\/p>\n
     .                                     However, as per proviso to Section 4, Section<\/p>\n
     4             was          not           to             apply        in          case           of         proceedings              relating          to<\/p>\n
     sections             11,          12,              13       and           14         of         the        principal          Act           in       so<\/p>\n
     far           as                 such               proceedings             are           relatable          to               the                  land,<\/p>\n
     possession                 of          which              has        been            taken            over         by         the                  State<\/p>\n
     Government                       or           any           person              duly             authorised             by           the           State<\/p>\n
     Government in this behalf or by the competent<\/p>\n
     authority.\n<\/p>\n
     42.                          The factual matrix of the case in hand reveals<\/p>\n
     that           with                     the             withdrawal             of         the         exemption              under                  Sub<\/p>\n
     Section               (2)                      of          Section             20          the         consequences                          provided<\/p>\n
     therein         became                   operative                  and               provisions                  of          Chapter                III<\/p>\n
     became                     applicable.                            The               Competent                Authority                          actually<\/p>\n
     acted               upon                     and           applied             provisions             of          Chapter           III               to<\/p>\n
                                                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                :22:<\/span><\/p>\n
     the          facts                  of               this             case            in        hand                and              followed                  the<\/p>\n
     procedure                    laid                   down                   under             Section             10                 as                   indicated<\/p>\n
     hereinabove.                             In                 other                 words,                   the                consequence                       of<\/p>\n
     passing                 of                    an           order          under             Section             20(1)                    results                in<\/p>\n
     exemption                      of                  surplus            of                        vacant               land            from                      the<\/p>\n
     provisions                     of             the           Act.                      However,                 Section             20(2)             of        the<\/p>\n
     ULC                 Act                       does           not          provide               that           possession            of                    surplus<\/p>\n
     land                 would                 automatically                  deemed                  to           have           been              taken           by<\/p>\n
     the              Competent                          Authority.                             In              fact,                   Section                   20(2)<\/p>\n
     provides                 that                       the               provisions                          of                 Chapter-III                      will<\/p>\n
     apply,                   once,                 the            order              is             passed              under            Section                20(2).\n<\/p>\n
     In               this          case            the           order           was             passed             on          25th           April,            2005<\/p>\n
     and<\/p>\n
     the
\n                        from<\/p>\n
                      Act<\/p>\n
                                         that<\/p>\n
                                              became
\n                                                          date,          the<\/p>\n
                                                                  applicable
\n                                                                                       provisions<\/p>\n
                                                                                           to          the
\n                                                                                                                of<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                    land
\n                                                                                                                            Chapter<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                         in
\n                                                                                                                                                   III               of<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                              question.\n<\/p>\n
     The              Respondent                         themselves                    have                         resorted                  to                    the<\/p>\n
     provisions                     of                      Chapter              III             for          taking             possession                         and<\/p>\n
     passed                   an              order            and         issued                notice             under           Section               10         of<\/p>\n
     the              Act.                               Section          10           does            not           provide            for                    different<\/p>\n
     procedure                     to              be           adopted           subsequent                   to          the           passing                     of<\/p>\n
     an           order             under               Section           20(2)            of          the          ULC           Act.                   As        seen<\/p>\n
     from         the               material                   available               on              record,              the               lands              owned<\/p>\n
     by               the                      Petitioner                      are              concerned,                       the                     Notification<\/p>\n
     under                    Section                   10(1)            was           published                    on         21st             July,             2005;\n<\/p>\n
     whereas                       Notice                issued            under                Section              10(3)              was                      issued<\/p>\n
     on        16th          December,                    2005;                   and                the        same             was           published             in<\/p>\n
     the              Government                          Gazette                    on          2nd           February,                      2006                 and,<\/p>\n
     therefore,                    Notice                         under           Section                   10(5)          was           issued                      on<\/p>\n
     2th              June,                    2007                  directing                               petitioner                  to                handover<\/p>\n
     possession                    of                    the         surplus               vacant            land.                 It          is,                thus,<\/p>\n
                                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                   :23:<\/span><\/p>\n
     clear that the submission advanced by the learned AGP<\/p>\n
     is just contrary to the action taken by the State.\n<\/p>\n
     43.                             Now so far as those lands which are owned by<\/p>\n
     the              petitioner                            in             relation             to          which                      a                     notification<\/p>\n
     under         sub-section                   3               of           Section                 10          of          the               Principal              Act<\/p>\n
     was            issued                     and                      the         order             under             sub-section                    (5)              of<\/p>\n
     Section          10               of                  the              Principal                       Act             was                 made                    are<\/p>\n
     concerned,                 it                    is          the         provision               of        Section           3                    of              the<\/p>\n
     Repeal        Act               which                 is          relevant.                       Reading              of             Section               3      of<\/p>\n
     the           Repeal                      Act               shows            that          it         is       a       saving              clause                 and<\/p>\n
     sub-section                     1(a)              of             Section             3            of           the          Repeal                Act           saves<\/p>\n
     vesting<\/p>\n
     Section
\n                           of<\/p>\n
                              10<\/span>
\n                                       ig   of
\n                                                  any<\/p>\n
                                                            the
\n                                                                      vacant<\/p>\n
                                                                            Principal
\n                                                                                         land          under<\/p>\n
                                                                                                     Act,
\n                                                                                                                          sub-section<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                    possession               of
\n                                                                                                                                                      (3)               of<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                                     which<\/p>\n
     has       been           taken              over                 by          the            State            Government.                               In       other<\/p>\n
     words,                   vesting                  of               vacant             lands                under            sub-             section               (3)<\/p>\n
     of         Section                   10                    of               the       Principal            Act               in              the                 State<\/p>\n
     Government, possession of which has not been taken<\/p>\n
     over, is not saved.\n<\/p>\n
     44.                             In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact<\/p>\n
     that             though                         declaration                         under                    sub-section                         (3)               of<\/p>\n
     Section               10                    of             the         Principal                Act        was          made               and                  notice<\/p>\n
     under               Section                            10(5)             was          issued               but                 actual                       physical<\/p>\n
     possession          of           the              land                was           not           taken              over             by           the           State<\/p>\n
     Government                      or                     by             the         competent                authority                       under                  the<\/p>\n
     Act.                  Therefore,                      on              bare            reading                of          the               provisions,              it<\/p>\n
     can           be                 said             that           in         view           of          repeal,         vesting                    of               the<\/p>\n
     land           of                the                       petitioner          in         the          State             by                  virtue                of<\/p>\n
                                                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                  :24:<\/span><\/p>\n
     declaration made under sub-section (3) of Section 10<\/p>\n
     of the Principal Act, is not saved.\n<\/p>\n
     45.                             The purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the<\/p>\n
     Repeal               Act                    is         to            save           or       protect           vesting                   of                vacant<\/p>\n
     lands           in                   the                 State            Government               from            and          out                of          the<\/p>\n
     vacant              lands                   that                     might           have         vested                   in                the             State<\/p>\n
     Government                     by                  virtue                      of                    declarations                      made                 under<\/p>\n
     sub-section              (3)           of              Section                  10           of              the          Principal                Act,         of<\/p>\n
     which               possession                        has                 been                       taken.                           Therefore,               by<\/p>\n
     necessary                implication                      it              follows                  that                 vesting               of             those<\/p>\n
     lands          in              the               State               Government                    under                 sub-section                (3)         of<\/p>\n
     Section                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
     has not been taken has been repealed or made
\n                                                      of            the         Principal              Act          of          which                        possession<\/p>\n
     ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
     46.                             The above legal position is settled by the<\/p>\n
     Division                   Bench              Judgment                    of         this          court            in          the          case               of<\/p>\n
     Voltas              Ltd.                          &            Anr.                 Vs.              Additional                       Collector               and<\/p>\n
     Competent                       Authority                      in         Writ              Petition               No.8356              of                   2006<\/p>\n
     decided             on               25th                 July,                 2008,        to               which               one               of         us<\/p>\n
     (Daga,J.)             is                   party                    and                     the               said               judgment                   found<\/p>\n
     approval              of                   the                 Hon’ble              Apex          Court            in      view                    of          the<\/p>\n
     dismissal             of               S.L.P.(Civil)                        No.25745                    of               2008             vide               order<\/p>\n
     dated                7th             November,                       2008            in        the            matter             of                     Additional<\/p>\n
     Collector & Competent Authority & Ors. Vs. Voltas<\/p>\n
     Ltd. & Anr. (unreported).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                        :25:<\/span><\/p>\n
     47.                           The submissions made by Mr.Sonpal that by<\/p>\n
     virtue         of             exemption                  under              Section                20(1)                   and            withdrawal<\/p>\n
     thereof             under                  Section                 20(2),                          the                 requirement                  of<\/p>\n
     section             10               partakes             the         nature        of         the          terms                   of             the<\/p>\n
     contract                 cannot            be         accepted.                      The             said             submission                    is<\/p>\n
     untenable.                           The             reliance            placed               on           the              Division            Bench<\/p>\n
     Judgment                 in           the             case             of           Mohan                           Vs.                    Principal<\/p>\n
     Secretary,                    U.D.D.Govt.                                   of        Maharashtra                      delivered                    in<\/p>\n
     W.P.No.5684                    of                   2007              dated                   14th                     August,                   2008<\/p>\n
     (unreported)                    is           also           misplaced.                          The                 reliance                    placed<\/p>\n
     by           Mr.Sonpal                 on          sub          clause        (b)        of        Section             3             of            the<\/p>\n
     Repeal         Act             is           also           misconceived                  as              the              exemption             under<\/p>\n
     Section         20(1)
\n                                     ig  stood<\/p>\n
     exemption under Section 20(2) of the Principal Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          nullified              in           view                  of           withdrawal              of<\/p>\n
     The question of saving thereof did not arise.\n<\/p>\n
     48.                           Having said so, Mr.Sonpal also tried to rely<\/p>\n
     upon           Section                6              of         the      General              Clauses           Act                of            1897<\/p>\n
     which deals with the effect of repealing a Statute.\n<\/p>\n
     The said Section reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                               6.        Effect of repeal :                                               Where this Act,                       or    any
\n                     [Central        Act]           or    Regulation                                      made            after                        the
\n                     commencement              of         this                                            Act,        repeals                         any
\n                     enactment         hitherto          made      or                                     hereafter           to                        be
\n                     made,        then,           unless        a                                          different                             intention
\n                     appears,              the               repeal                                                 shall                             not-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          (a)               revive    anything  not     in                           force            or         existing
\n                     at                   the            time      at     which     the                             repeal             takes      effect;
\n                     or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                   (b) affect the previous operation of any
\n                     enactment so repealed or anything duly done or
\n                     suffered thereunder; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                          (c)            affect      any                right,            privilege,                obligation          or
\n                     liability                             acquired,                  accrued               or                  incurred             under<\/p>\n
                                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               :26:<\/span><\/p>\n
                         any                          enactment                           so                     repealed;                                         or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                (d)                  affect                any                penalty,      forfeiture                             or
\n                         punishment                                 incurred              in             respect       of      any                            offence
\n                         committed                                 against              any             enactment        so                                 repealed;
\n                         or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                       (e)         affect         any         investigation,       legal        proceeding
\n                         or         remedy            in         respect          of         any         such        right,
\n                         privilege,                        obligation,            penalty,           forfeiture         or<\/p>\n
                         punishment                as               aforesaid,             and         any            such
\n                         investigation,                   legal         proceeding           or        remedy         may
\n                         be                instituted,         continued          or        enforced,        and       any
\n                         such                penalty,         forfeiture         or       punishment          may       be
\n                         imposed                as        if       the       repealing        Act       or      Regulation<\/p>\n
                         had                            not                           been                         passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     49.                              Thus, all the provisions of the (repealed) Act<\/p>\n
     would,               under                      Section                 6        continue              in               force               for              the<\/p>\n
     purpose                     of              enforcing                  the           liability              incurred              when                       the<\/p>\n
     Act<\/p>\n
     proceeding
\n                          was<\/p>\n
                                 or
\n                                        ig  in<\/p>\n
                                                        remedy
\n                                                                  force<\/p>\n
                                                                                   may
\n                                                                                            and              any<\/p>\n
                                                                                                           instituted
\n                                                                                                                               investigation,<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                       continued
\n                                                                                                                                                                legal<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                                   or<\/p>\n
     enforced              as                   if       the         Act          has          not         expired.                       At                common<\/p>\n
     law,                the                    normal              effect           of          repealing              a       statute             is             to<\/p>\n
     obliterate                  it             from               the            statute            book              as        completely                        as<\/p>\n
     if             it         had         never                  been       passed,              and            the         statute           must               be<\/p>\n
     considered            as          a               law           that            never            existed.                       To             this        rule,<\/p>\n
     an           exception                is                engrafted               by              the           provisions                  of            Section<\/p>\n
     6,             and                 there                may           also           be         special             savings          in                  special<\/p>\n
     Acts          dealing              with                 the            effect              of          repeal.                       Therefore               the<\/p>\n
     effect               of           repeal                is          qualified             by          two              words         “unless                  a<\/p>\n
     different intention appears”, in Section 6 of the<\/p>\n
     General Clauses Act,1897.\n<\/p>\n
     50.                              Turning to the facts of the case in hand,<\/p>\n
     there          is           a                   clear            indication                  that,            the               above                 provisions<\/p>\n
     makes                 it          clear             that             section           6         of           the         General                       Clauses<\/p>\n
                                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                      :27:<\/span><\/p>\n
     Act                 applies                              unless                 a        different                  intention               appears                      in<\/p>\n
     the        Repeal            Act.                        In              our         view,            Section                  6          of           the         General<\/p>\n
     Clauses Act would not apply because Article 252(2)<\/p>\n
     evidences an intention to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
     51.                               Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is a<\/p>\n
     general                 provision                             in           relation            to          saving              in                    case               of<\/p>\n
     repeal                 of                        Central                 enactment.                        But            if          the                      Parliament<\/p>\n
     while                  enacting                          the             repeal           enactment                  choses                        to                make<\/p>\n
     provision                        in              the           repeal               enactment                  in           relation                 to                 the<\/p>\n
     saving                 of                    the             thing             done           and          action              taken             under                  the<\/p>\n
     repeal                 enactment,                             the                   saving            clause              in                    the                  repeal<\/p>\n
     enactment<\/p>\n
     therefore,                   if
\n                                       will
\n                                            ig                be<\/p>\n
                                                             the          matter
\n                                                                                the<\/p>\n
                                                                                              is
\n                                                                                                         special<\/p>\n
                                                                                                          covered                   by
\n                                                                                                                                          provisions<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                 that
\n                                                                                                                                                                            and<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                                         special<\/p>\n
     provision,                                 the                general                  provision                     contained                       in            Section<\/p>\n
     6            of               the            General                Clauses              Act         will           not            apply                  or            its<\/p>\n
     application                           will               be              excluded               to             the                 extent               the         matter<\/p>\n
     is                     specifically                      covered                    by              the              specific                   saving              clause<\/p>\n
     enacted                      in                   that                   legislation.                                In                   our                      opinion,<\/p>\n
     therefore,                  as                    in                     the        Repeal            Act             the                   provision,                   in<\/p>\n
     relation            to                  the                   land                  which                 vested                     in                the            State<\/p>\n
     Government                            under                  sub-section                 (3)              of          Section                   10            of        the<\/p>\n
     Principal                   Act                        but          of          which           possession                  has                    not                been<\/p>\n
     taken,                 has                       been                      specifically              made,                to                    that                 extent<\/p>\n
     application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act<\/p>\n
     will stand excluded.\n<\/p>\n
     52.                               The above legal position is also considered in<\/p>\n
     detail            by                  us                in                the       case        of                  Voltas                  Ltd.                     (cited<\/p>\n
                                                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           :28:<\/span><\/p>\n
     supra).                         The                   submissions                  advanced               by                Mr.Sonpal                     with<\/p>\n
     regard              to                 Section          6            of       the         General                Clauses               Act                thus<\/p>\n
     holds no water. Reliance placed by him on number of<\/p>\n
     Judgments is also misplaced.\n<\/p>\n
     53.                             In the aforesaid view of the matter, the<\/p>\n
     petitioner is liable to succeed and the petition is<\/p>\n
     liable to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     54.                             In the result, for the reasons recorded,<\/p>\n
     petition               succeeds                 and                  is      allowed.                      It          is              held               and<\/p>\n
     declared                 that              as               a         consequence               of          the                     Repeal                Act,<\/p>\n
     further<\/p>\n
     State               Government<\/p>\n
                                 proceedings               pursuant<\/p>\n
                                                            dated
\n                                                                                 to<\/p>\n
                                                                               28th
\n                                                                                              the<\/p>\n
                                                                                             June,
\n                                                                                                               order<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                          2007<\/span>
\n                                                                                                                                   made            by<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                   withdrawing
\n                                                                                                                                                                the<\/p>\n
     exemption                        and            all             further                actions              taken                   under              Section<\/p>\n
     10(3)            shall            stand               abated                and                    can                  no              longer              be<\/p>\n
     proceeded                further.                        That                 all              further                      proceedings                  under<\/p>\n
     the        provisions                of         the              Principal               Act              in                relation          to           the<\/p>\n
     land                   of         the           petitioner                mentioned                  in              declaration                         made<\/p>\n
     under                  sub-Section              (3)             of          Section            10               of            the                  Principal<\/p>\n
     Act        have             lapsed          and          those              lands             no           longer               vests             in       the<\/p>\n
     State Government. Rule is made absolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     55.                             At this stage, the learned AGP prayed for stay<\/p>\n
     of               the            judgment.                       The          said             prayer              is           strongly                opposed<\/p>\n
     by         the           learned            Senior               Counsel                for           the               petitioner.                        He,<\/p>\n
     however,           makes               a          statement                that,          for              a                period           of          eight<\/p>\n
     weeks,                 the                 petitioner            shall           not          deal              with                   the                said<\/p>\n
                                                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                              :29:<\/span><\/p>\n
     property          in      any           manner          whatsoever.                  The          statement       made<\/p>\n
     in         this           behalf         takes       care        of      the    prayer      made        by          the<\/p>\n
     learned            AGP.                The       same       is        taken    on     record.                  Needless<\/p>\n
     to           mention            that         after      expiry          of     the       period               mentioned<\/p>\n
     herein, the petitioner would automatically stand<\/p>\n
     relieved of his statement made and recorded herein.\n<\/p>\n
     (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)                                                                     (V.C.DAGA,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:30:51 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 Bench: V.C. Daga, Mridula Bhatkar :1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4241 OF 2008 Vithabai Bama Bhandari Indian Inhabitant, residing at Building No.1, 3rd Floor, Bombay Housing Board Building, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (East), […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-21T17:12:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-21T17:12:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5644,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-21T17:12:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-21T17:12:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-21T17:12:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"},"wordCount":5644,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009","name":"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-21T17:12:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-inhabitant-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Inhabitant vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170450","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}