Whether this case involves a substantial question v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY & DEPUTY COLLECTOR (ULC) & 2
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jul 2005
- Bench
- AKIL KURESHI
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of this clear averment on affidavit made by the respondents and in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and proceedings relating to land in question would abate. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule…
Judgment
due to status-quo order granted by the High Court. It is also stated that though interim order was vacated by the High Court by an order dated 19/6/1992, it was granted again by an order dated 18/3/1994 to last till the final disposal of the petition. From the record of the case, it is seen that on 19/6/1992 the petition was dismissed for default and interim order was vacated. However, subsequently after restoration of the petition, the same was admitted by an order dated SCA/6927/1990 JUDGMENT 18/3/1994 and by way of interim relief both sides were directed to maintain status-quo till final disposal of the petition. It is further stated in the said affidavit that on the date of coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on 30th March, 1999 the possession of the surplus vacant land had not been taken by the Government.
Operative part
In view of this clear averment on affidavit made by the respondents and in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and proceedings relating to land in question would abate. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) smita/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Repeal Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 28 Jul 2005. The bench was AKIL KURESHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.