Western Indian Tanaries Co.Ltd v. The Addl.Collector & Competent
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The State Government has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit also the Government has clearly stated that the actual and physical possession of the surplus land has not been taken. In view of this position and the provisions of the Repeal Act and the…
Judgment
Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 11th March, 2010 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
The petitioner was holding urban land. 2 The State Government sought to acquire the said for the purpose of MIDC. Finally in Civil Application No.1066 of 1984, by consent of parties, the land in question was withdrawn from acquisition, and notification for acquisition of the said land was also withdrawn by the State Government. By letter dt. 11-7-1984 the Petitioners had applied for exemption. On 9-10-1987 , Return was filed on behalf of the Petitioners. On 29-12-1988, the Petitioners(cid:25) application for exemption under Section 20 of the ULC Act was allowed and exemption was granted. On 12-4-1994, in view of the changed policy and in view of the new guide-lines the Competent Authority was pleased to issue Corrigendum order and as per the said Corrigendum 38,468 sq.meters of land surplus was declared as surplus. Thereafter, Notification under Section 10(1) dated 9-5-2005 and Notification under Section 10(3) 3 dated 16-11-2005 as also notice under Section 10(5) dated 15-11-2007 were issued. But possession of the surplus land was not taken till 29-11-2007 when the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
The contention of the Petitioners is that in view of the repeal Act all further proceedings in relation to the surplus land abates.
The State Government has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit also the Government has clearly stated that the actual and physical possession of the surplus land has not been taken. In view of this position and the provisions of the Repeal Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. Additional 4 Collector & Competent Authority & ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R.746 the petition will have to be allowed. The Petition thus succeeds and is allowed. It is clear that in view of the provisions of the Repeal Act all further proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in relation to the land of the Petitioner which was declared surplus by order dated 15-11-2007 have abated. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(A.R.JOSHI, J.)
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.