2009 (10) TMI 994 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 15/11/2007 passed u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Reasonableness of the time taken to exercise revisional powers u/s 34 of the U.L.C. Act.
4. Effect of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on the proceedings.

Summary:

1. Legality of the order dated 15/11/2007 passed u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 15/11/2007 passed by the Government of Maharashtra u/s 34 of the U.L.C. Act, which set aside the earlier order dated 19/2/1999 by the Competent Authority declaring that the U.L.C. Act was not applicable to the petitioner's land. The petitioner argued that the revisional powers were exercised after an unreasonable delay of eight years, which is not permissible.

2. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel:
The petitioner contended that the State Government's resolution dated 14/3/2007 proposing to repeal the U.L.C. Act for Maharashtra attracted the doctrine of promissory estoppel, preventing the State from invoking its revisional powers u/s 34 of the U.L.C. Act after such a long period.

3. Reasonableness of the time taken to exercise revisional powers u/s 34 of the U.L.C. Act:
The Court examined whether the State Government could exercise its revisional powers after an extraordinary delay of eight years. It referred to several judgments, including Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 211, which held that revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time, generally considered to be three years, unless there are allegations of fraud. The Court found no explanation for the delay and no allegations of fraud in this case, thus deeming the exercise of powers after eight years as improper and illegal.

4. Effect of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on the proceedings:
The petitioner argued that u/s 4 of the Repeal Act, all proceedings relating to any order made under the U.L.C. Act abate. The Court noted that the impugned order dated 15/11/2007 was a final order and not a pending proceeding, thus not covered by Section 4 of the Repeal Act. However, since the exercise of powers u/s 34 of the U.L.C. Act after eight years was found to be improper and illegal, the Court did not delve further into this aspect.

Conclusion:
The impugned order dated 15/11/2007 was quashed and set aside due to the unreasonable delay in exercising revisional powers. The petition was disposed of, keeping other questions open for future consideration.