Kanha Hira Patil & Ors. v. The Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Government has filed their reply. In its reply, more particularly in para-3, the Government has accepted that the actual possession is with the petitioners. In this view of the matter and the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division…
Judgment
Mr.S.G. Karandikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2010. P.C.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
Pursuant to a return filed by the petitioners under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act") land admeasuring 11550 square meters was declared as surplus land by order dated 17.09.2007. Thereafter notification under sub section 1 of Section 10 was issued on 25.10.2007. According to the respondents, thereafter notification under sub section 3 of Section 10 was issued on 17.11.2007. According to the petitioners, notice under Section 10(5) was given and, therefore, he continued in possession of the land till 29.11.2007 when the ULC Act
5.wp.657-10 2 was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999. According to the petitioners therefore in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. and another vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, as the petitioners continue to be in possession of the surplus land on 29.11.2007 when the ULC Act was repealed by the Repeal Act, all further proceedings in relation to the surplus land under the ULC Act have lapsed.
Operative part
The Government has filed their reply. In its reply, more particularly in para-3, the Government has accepted that the actual possession is with the petitioners. In this view of the matter and the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. (supra), the Petition will have to be allowed. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (e). No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)
(A.R. JOSHI, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Repeal Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Feb 2010. The bench was D K DESHMUKH, A R JOSHI.
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.