LexDATTATRYA SHANKARBHAT AMBALGI & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c DATIATRYA SHANKARBHAT AMBf.!...GI & ORS. v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. AUGUST I, 1989 ,[L.M. SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 31-Vires of Sections IO, 11 and 23 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1975. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Sections 125 and /2(r-Land reserved for pu,blic purpose-Acquisition and compensa- tion thereof-Applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ·f-. Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976: Sections IO, l l and 23-Whether violative of Articles 14 and 3 l of the Constitution of ~· India, 1950. · D The State Government sanctioned development plan in respect of land situated in Sholapur under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Though the sanction covered the land of petitioners also, some of their 11.nd was reserved for public purpose under the said Act. E Thereafter, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 .( came into force and proceedings for acquisition of land in excess of the ceiling limit were initiated. Against such proceedings, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of writ petitions. ' The petitioners contended that the Urban Ceiling Act would not F apply to the lands reserved for a public purpose under the Town Planning Act and that the proceedings should be quashed. They also ¥ challenged the constitutional validity of sections 10, II and 23 of the Ceiling Act, as being ultra vires of Articles 14 and 31, and prayed for a G H Writ of Mandamus restraining the State Government from acquiring the petitioners' land under the Ceiling Act. Dismissing the writ petitions, HELD: I. I. The Act has been placed in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution at SI. No. 132 and consequently comes under the protec- tive umbrella of Article 31-B of the Constitution. [620A-B] I.2. It is not the case of tbe petitioners that the provisions of the 616 ·.,D.S. AMBALGI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 617 Ceiling Act in any way damage or~ a basic or essential feature of A the Constitution or its basic stnactutt. Also there is no statutory provi· sion either in the Ceiling Act or in the Town Planning Act, which would exclude the operation of the Ce_iling Act _,with. regard to lands reserved for public purpose under the Town Planning Act. [620C-E] ,., ./>, ~ i Maharao Sahib Shri Bheem Singh_v. Union.of India.and others, [1985] Suppl. I S.C.R. 862; applied. B 2.1. The primary object and the purpose of the Ceiling Act is to provide for the imposition of a ceiling OD vacant land in urban agglo- merations, for the acquisition of such land iD·eicess of the ceiling limit to regulate the construction of buiJdlnp ·on such land and for matters C connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteer- ing therein, to bring about an equilahle distribution of land is urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the Diredive Principles of~ 39(b) and (c). The land to the extent which ran. within the celling area stands in a class different from the land which is D in excess of the ceiling area and is liable to be declared surplus to give effect to the purpose and object of the Ceiling Act. [6wG-Hi 621A, B & G] 2.2. In the instant case, the purpose and object of the Ceiling Act is entirely different from just acquiring a bit of land here or a bit of land there for some public purpose. The Ceiling Act is a self-conlained Code E having an overriding provision in Section 42. Once the land falls beyond the ceiling limit precribed by the Ceiling Act and is capable of being acquired as surplus land under Section 10 thereof it wonld be wbolly inappropriate to acquire the same very land or a portion thereof nuder the Town Planning Act inasmuch as it wonld inter alia apparently result in misuse of public funds by granting higher compensation when the F purpose of acquisition can be achieved OD payment of the lesser amount of compensation prescribed in Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. [624A, B, F & G] Union of India etc. v. Va//uri Basavaiah Chowdhary etc. etc., [1979] 3 S.C.R. 802; State of Gujarat &. Others v. Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel & Others, [1988] I S.C.R. 997; relied on. G Nagar Improvement Trust & Another v. Vitha/ Rao & Others, [ 1973] 3 S.C.R. 39, distinguished. Prakash Chand Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarai ~nd others, (1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.