Sca No. 7682 of 1996 · Gujarat High Court

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 01/02/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT

The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the order passed by the State SCA/7682/1996 JUDGMENT Government in revisional jurisdiction, whereby the proceedings of auction of the land in question is set aside.

Heard Mr.Chhaya for Mr.Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Soni, learned AGP for the State Authorities.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that it is not in dispute that the auction came to be held as back as in the year 1981 and it was also confirmed in the year 1981. The proceedings in suo motu revision were initiated for the first time by issuing notice dated 4.12.1995. The perusal of the impugned order shows that there were two grounds in the show-cause notice for exercise of the power and out of those two grounds, so far as permission under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is concerned, the State Government has found that such ground would not survive in view of the payment of premium already made of 60 times revenue. The State Government on administrative side has not challenged the said order. SCA/7682/1996 JUDGMENT

So far as the second ground is concerned, it pertains to the holding of the auction without prior permission of the authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “ULC Act of 1976”). The petition came to be entertained for the first time on 5.10.1996 and the interim order of maintaining status quo was passed, which is in operation till today. Pending the petition, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Repeal Act”) has come into force and accordingly, the ULC Act of 1976 is repealed, barring certain actions already taken under the ULC Act of 1976 either of taking over the possession, after vesting under Section 10(3) of the Act, of the land, which is declared as excess land or the exemption granted under Section 20(1) of the Act. Neither of the contingencies providing for saving of the action under Section ULC Act of 1976 arises in the present case. Therefore, when the ULC Act of 1976, even for so far as it relates to obtaining prior permission of the ULC SCA/7682/1996 JUDGMENT Authority before the auction, does not remain in operation, no cause would continue to remain as found by the State Government in the impugned order. As such by afflux of time and in view of the Repeal Act, the cause as mentioned in the impugned order of the Government would not survive and consequently if it is observed that the order of the State Government would not survive, no serious prejudice will be caused to either side.

In view of the above, it is hereby observed that in view of the Repeal Act, the impugned order of the State Government would not survive and as a consequence thereof, there is no cause surviving for examining the legality and validity of the order.