9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring that the properties in Sy. Nos. 89, 93, 94, 96, 101 and 105, covering an extent of 1,02,168 square meters at Fathenagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was in excess of the ceiling limit. They also filed an exemption application before the Commissioner of Industries for grant of exemption. The Government, vide G.O.Ms. No. 1577 dated 23.09.1978, granted exemption of the entire extent of 1,02,168 square meters subject to the condition that an extent of 45,944 square meters in Sy. Nos. 101, 105 and part of Sy. No. 96 of Fathenagar should be utilized for the manufacture of time pieces and defense computer fuses for rotors; and the remaining land of an extent of 56,224 square meters in Sy. Nos. 93, 94 and 96 of Fathenagar, should be used for future expansion or for other purposes connected with the industry. SIFCO Ltd. was granted exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, vide G.O.Ms. No. 1577 dated 23.09.1978, for an extent of 45,944.00 square meters in Survey Nos. 101, 185 and a part of 96 of Fathenagar-Sanathnagar Village and an extent of 56,224.00 square meters in Survey Nos. 89, 93, 94 and a part of 96 of Fathena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dated 20.12.2010, informed them that an NOC could not be granted unless the State Government accorded permission, the petitioner submitted their representation dated 03.01.2011 requesting the Government to grant permission for issuing an NOC. By its memo dated 24.06.2011, the Government rejected the petitioner's request for change of land use; and the Special Chief Secretary Chief Commissioner of Land Administration was requested to inform the petitioner that the exemption, which was given under Section 20 of the Act in favour of SIFCO Ltd., held good and was saved; their request for change of land usage did not, therefore, deserve consideration; and there was no provision to grant permission or to issue No Objection Certificate under the Repeal Act. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed W.P. No. 5135 of 2013 before this Court. During the pendency of the Writ Petition the 2nd respondent informed them, vide proceedings dated 04.03.2013, that their request for permission for change of land usage deserved no consideration as the exemption granted earlier under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act held good and stood saved; and there was no provision to grant permission or to issue a N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing limit and the State Government is satisfied that, having regard to the location of such land and the purpose for which it was being or was proposed to be used, it was necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, the Government may by order exempt, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, such vacant land from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act. The proviso to Section 20(1) requires an order, under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act, to be made only after recording reasons for doing so in writing. Section 20(2) of the Act empowers the State Government, if at any time it is satisfied that any of the conditions subject to which any exemption was granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 20(1) has not been complied with by any person, to withdraw, by order, such exemption after giving a reasonable opportunity to such person for making a representation against the proposed withdrawal. On an order of withdrawal, of the earlier order of exemption, being passed the provisions of Chapter III would apply accordingly. 8. After the surplus land of SIFCO Ltd. was transferred in their favour neither Consolidated Coffee Ltd. nor the petitioner herein f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s required under Section 15 of the Act, was if an order had been passed by the Government, under Section 20(2) of the Act withdrawing the exemption granted earlier under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act. 11. The statement of objects and reasons for the Repeal Act (Act 15 of 1999) shows that the proposed repeal of the Act, along with some other incentives and simplification of administrative procedures, was expected to revive the stagnant housing industry and provide affordable living accommodation for those who were in a state of under served want and were entitled to public assistance; the repeal would, however, not affect land on which building activity had already commenced; and, for that limited purpose, exemptions granted under Section 20 of the Act will continue to be operative. Section 1(2) of the Repeal Act makes it applicable to such of the States which adopt the Repeal Act by a resolution passed in that behalf under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India. The Repeal Act was adopted by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature with effect from 27.03.2008. Consequently the principal Act ceased to remain in force thereafter. Section 3(1)(b) of the Repeal Act, however, saves th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the principal Act itself is repealed on the ground that it has failed to achieve the objective expected of it, it is not open for the 1st respondent-Government to refuse permission in the instant case, only on the ground that the conditions imposed in the order granting exemption shall continue to operate. In the absence of any saving clause, saving sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the principal Act, even in cases where conditions are violated, Government is not empowered to withdraw the exemptions granted under Section 20(1) of the principal Act, after coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. In the absence of such power, and further, in view of the Repealing Act itself, the conditions imposed in the order granting exemption, have become un-enforceable and are non-est. In the absence of initiation of proceedings or withdrawal of exemption granted under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act before the enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the land, which is exempted, will become a free-hold land, and hence, the stand of the respondents that even after coming into force of the Repealing Act, 1999, the conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, consequent on the subject lands being transferred to and vested in its favour pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation, the subject lands did not stand vested in the Government under the Act. Even in cases, where an order of exemption has not been passed under Section 20(1) of the Act, it is only such of those ceiling surplus lands which the State Government had taken possession of, under Section 10(6) of the Act before 27.03.2008, which would vest in the Government. As the State Government did not take possession of the subject lands, under Section 10(6) of the Act, before 27.03.2008 the subject lands would still have belonged to the petitioner even if no exemption had been granted in respect of the subject lands. It is difficult to construe Section 3(1)(d) of the Repeal Act as to enable the State Government, after the Act itself has been repealed, to now exercise powers under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act, withdraw the exemption granted earlier, and claim that the subject land vests in it. 14. Sri Avinash Desai, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to a judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Vithabai Bama Bhandari Indian Inhabitant v. State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. (M/s. Sree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of SIT Association AIR 1992 S.C. 1439; Government of A.P. v. N. Rami Reddy AIR 2001 A.P. 226 : 2001(1) ALD 443 : 2001(1) ALT 438). The ratio of a judgment is the reasons assigned in support thereof. When a Court of appeal stays the operation of the judgment it stays the further implementation, as between the parties, of the operative portion thereof. When a question of law is decided its ratio cannot be said to be wiped out only because the operation of the said order is stayed. The dicta laid down in a judgment cannot be ignored unless the Court, after hearing a particular case, doubts the correctness of the dicta and thinks it appropriate that it should be reconsidered. (N. Rami Reddy AIR 2001 A.P. 226 : 2001(1) ALD 443 : 2001(1) ALT 438); K. Yella Reddy V. Registrar APAT 1996(3) ALT 1047). As the law declared in Surendra Raj Jaiswal 2011(6) ALD 198 would bind a coordinate Bench, the impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2011 and 04.03.2013 must be, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
