MADHUSUDAN BHANUPRASAD PANDYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 01-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
MADHUSUDAN BHANUPRASAD PANDYA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6022 of 2019)
AUGUST 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: s.20 –
Application for exemption under s.20 filed by appellant – State
Government rejected the application – Writ petition filed by
appellant to set aside the order of  State Government rejecting
exemption – High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that
entire procedure of vesting the land in Government and taking the
possession thereof under s.10 of the Act was completed way back
in the year 1990 and rejected the plea of appellant that upon repeal
of the said Act, the proceedings would abate – On appeal, held:
s.3(1)(b) of the Repealing Act provides that the repeal will not affect
the validity of an order granting exemption under s.20(1) or any
action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court
to the contrary – What is saved by s.3(1)(b) is the validity of an
order under which an exemption under s.20(1) has been granted –
In the instant case, there was no order for the grant of an exemption
under s.20 on the date on which the repeal was brought into force
– The appellant did not place in issue either the order of vesting or
the consequences which followed under the terms of the Act of 1976
– Once possession was taken over prior to the date of repeal i.e. 31
March 1999, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the
High Court – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 – s.3(1)(b).
State of Gujarat v. Gyanaba Dilavarsinh Jadega (2013)
11 SCC 486 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2013) 11 SCC 486
referred to
Para 16
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 626
626
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6022
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  24.01.2013 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1570 of
2005 in Special Civil Application No. 9057 of 1998.
With
S.L.P. (C) No. 16944 of 2013.
Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, A. Venayagam
Balan, Vipin Kumar Jai, Advs. for the Appellant.
Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv., Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan,
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Dharita Purvish Malkan, Bhaskar Singh, Alok
Kumar, Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Ms. Rumi Chanda,  Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted1.
2. The appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 24 January
2013 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, affirming the
dismissal of a Writ Petition by the Single Judge. On 7 July 2005, the
Single Judge dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the appellant seeking to
set aside an order of the State Government rejecting an application for
exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act 19762.
3. The appellant claims to be engaged in the business of
manufacturing cement pipes through M/s General Cement Pipe Company
Limited3 on land bearing Survey No 288/4 admeasuring 5160 sq m situated
at village Chandlodia, Taluka City District, Ahmedabad. The appellant
claims leasehold rights in the land under a rent note dated 27 March
1975. Upon the enactment of the Act of 1976 on 12 September 1976,
Form I under Section 6(1) was submitted on behalf of the Company,
declaring that the land was leased from the original owners. Village
form No 7/12 contained an entry for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 to
1 SLP(C) No 24021 of 2013
2 “Act of 1976"
3  “Company”
MADHUSUDAN BHANUPRASAD PANDYA v. STATE OF
GUJARAT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
the effect that the land had been put to non-agricultural use without
permission. As a result, by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(q), the
land upon which construction had been put up was liable to be considered
as vacant land. On 26 November 1982, a draft statement under Section
8(1) was issued. On 26 August 1985, the competent authority under
Section 8(4) declared land admeasuring 4160 sq m as excess vacant
land. On 17 September 1985, a final statement was issued under Section
9. A notification under Section 10(1) was published on 31 January 1986.
This was followed by a notification under Section 10(3) on 6 December
1986. A notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 6 March 1987. On 6
July 1990, the competent authority issued a notice under Section 10(6)
intimating that possession of the excess land w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.