9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 1071 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Statute - provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - In present case, The Act came into force on 17th February, 1976. On the said date, the suit land was not within urban limits, however it was included in the urban area residential zone only with effect from 17.05.1976, by extending the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The suit land was acquired under the Act, 1976, in the years 1978-1979 and its possession was taken and handed over to Pune Municipal Transport (for short PMT) for establishing a bus depot and staff quarters. In 1988, the bus depot was constructed on a part of the suit land, however, the appellant preferred a revision u/s 34 of the Act, 1976, dated 6.4.1998 contending that the land ought not to have been acquired under the Act, 1976, on the ground that on the date of commencement of the Act, 1976, i.e. 17.2.1976, the suit land was not within the limits of urban area. HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the Act, 1976, stood repealed by the Act 1999. However, it has no bearing on this case for the reason that proceeding pending in any Court relating to the Act, 1976, stood abated, provided the possession of the land had not been taken from the owner. Therefore, in a case, where the possession has been taken, the repeal of the Act would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land. Therefore, the law, as exists today, is that the land in dispute could be subjected to the provisions of the Act, 1976, with effect from 17.5.1976, i.e. the date on which the suit land came within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The Act stood repealed in 1999, but the proceedings pending in any court would stand abated provided the tenure-holder was in possession of the land on the date of the commencement of the Act 1999. The High Court has taken note of the fact that the appellant's revision had been entertained only on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum 1993 (3) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , which stood over-ruled by the subsequent judgment in N. Audikesava Reddy 2001 (11) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT . The aforesaid factual position makes it clear that the appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever as per the law, as it exists today. The land once vested in the State cannot be divested. Once the land is vested in the State it has a right to change the user. The appellant cannot be heard raising grievance on either of these issues. Thus, in view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acquisition of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. Legality of the revisional powers exercised under Section 34 of the Act, 1976. 3. Impact of the repeal of the Act, 1976 by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 4. Change of user of the acquired land. 5. Delay in filing the revision petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Acquisition of Land: The land in question was acquired under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act, 1976) in 1978-1979 and its possession was handed over to Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) for establishing a bus depot and staff quarters. The appellant contended that the land should not have been acquired under the Act, 1976, as on the date of commencement of the Act, the land was not within urban limits. The appellant relied on the judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2465, which stated that the categorization of land in the Master Plan at the time of the Act's commencement was relevant, and any subsequent change could not be considered. However, this judgment was overruled by State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 5, which held that the master plan prepared even after the enforcement of the Act should be considered. 2. Legality of the Revisional Powers Exercised: The appellant filed a revision under Section 34 of the Act, 1976, in 1998, contending that the land acquisition was invalid. Section 34 allows the State Government to call for and examine records of any order passed under the Act. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that even though Section 34 does not prescribe a time limit, the revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. The revision was filed almost two decades after the land was acquired, which was deemed unreasonable. The Court cited various precedents to support that revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time to avoid perpetual uncertainty and insecurity regarding land titles. 3. Impact of the Repeal of the Act, 1976: The Act, 1976, was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The repeal did not affect cases where possession of the land had already been taken by the State. The Court held that since possession of the land in question was taken in 1979, the repeal of the Act did not confer any benefit on the appellant. The proceedings under the repealed Act would stand abated only if the landowner was in possession of the land at the time of the repeal. 4. Change of User of the Acquired Land: The appellant argued that the land, initially earmarked for residential purposes, was impermissibly used for establishing a bus depot. The Court reiterated that once the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, the State has the absolute right to change its use. The original owner cannot challenge the change of user once the land has vested in the State. This principle was supported by various judgments, including Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, and C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627. 5. Delay in Filing the Revision Petition: The appellant's revision petition was filed in 1998, almost two decades after the land was acquired. The Court held that the delay was unreasonable and that the State Government should not have entertained the revision at such a belated stage. The Court emphasized that revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time to maintain the finality of proceedings and avoid disturbing long-settled matters. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any relief. The land, once vested in the State, could not be divested, and the State had the right to change its use. The revision petition filed after an unreasonable delay was not maintainable. The judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum, which the appellant relied upon, had been overruled, and thus, the initial proceedings under the Act, 1976, were valid. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
