1999 (2) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ture at Bombay In Writ Petition No. 994/93. The appellants had challenged the order dated 20th September, 1979 passed by the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Sangli and also the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act on the ground that they are violative of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution. The High Court summar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equest to re-open the proceedings on the ground that while determining excess ^and, the competent authority had not taken into consideration share of his sister in the joint family property. The competent authority refused to re-open the case and therefore the appellants were required to file Writ Petition. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Urban Land .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter the determination of the excess land, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued and the excess land vested in the State Government under Section 10(3) of the Act. Ten years thereafter, the appellants had filed the Writ Petition challenging the said order. The High Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the Writ Petition summarily. It is also worth noting that even though .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X