LexMORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SAURABH JAIN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)-
MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
A
-(
v.
SAURABH JAIN AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND
B
LOKESHWAR SINGH P ANTA, JJ.]
.,. •
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
s. 34 and proviso-Revision-Reasonable time limit for filing of- c
Land declared as surplus-Possession taken-After about 20 years
State Government, on a revision petition, holding land not covered
under the Act and directing to release it-Meanwhile land developed
as residential colony and houses and flats constructed thereon- D
HELD: For exercising revisional power, Government has to examine
>--
why applicant has not availed remedy of filing the appeal-It is also
.;
necessary to examine whether after a long lapse of time any action is
warranted-Besides, the proviso to s. 34 mandates grant of reasonable
opportunity of being heard to any person who is likely to be affected E
by the order-Natural justice.
UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973:
-~
ss. 17 and 3 4-Restoration of land on payment of development
charges etc. -On land declared as surplus under 19 7 6 Act, houses and F
flats for a residential colony constructed thereon-Jn revision after 20
years Government holding land not covered by 1976 Act-Some
portion of land directed to be returned to land owners on payment of
development charges etc.-HELD: Development charges and
construction charges are statutorily imposable under the Act-ss. 17 G
.,.
and 34 of the Act are not dependent on the proceedings under 1976
Act-On land-owners agreeing to pay development and other charges
as payable in law, direction given to release the unutilized vacant land
as specified in the judgment-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
443
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 10 S.C.R.
A Act, 1976-s.34.
Land admeasuring 8116.89 sq. mf:rs .. belonging to the respondents
was declared surplus under the Urba111 Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 in theyear1977. But, by order dated 9.7.1998,passed by the
B State Government in a revision peftition, the land was held to be
agricultural land and beyond the pun·iew of the 1976 Act, and, as such,
was directed to be released. Howt!ver, meanwhile the land was
developed as a residential colony and flats and houses constructed
thereon were allotted to various alllottees. On the application for
C restitution by the respondents, the Gl{)vernment agreed to return 3605
sq. mtrs. ofland subject to payment of development charges and cost
of construction. The High Court, in the writ petition filed by the
respondents, held that the demand for development charges was illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified, and direded the State Government and the
D appellant to return to the respondents 4511 sq. mtrs. ofland in the vicinity
of the land in dispute or to pay compensation at full market value.
Aggrieved, the Development Authority filed the instant appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
E
HELD:l.1. The High Court failed to notice that after20 years from
the date when the declaration of surplus land was made, the petition
under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
was filed without explaining as to what was the cause for inaction for
two decades. For the exercise ofre'visional power it is open to the State
>..
F
Government to examine a petition and on the basis of material indicated
therein to decide whether any action in terms of Section 34 is called for.
If the State Government decides to act on the basis of petition filed by
any person, it has to examine as to why the person has not availed the
remedy offtling an appeal. It is also necessary to examine whether after
G a long lapse of time any action is warranted. In this exercise, filing of
petition within a reasonable time is inbuilt. Besides, the petition for
revision u/s 34 of the Act filed by the respo~dents was disposed of
without notict> to the appellant. Though the appellant had the title over
the land, the name of the appelfantwas not included in the plaint as a
H
/
>
MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY v.
. 445
SAURABH JAIN
party. Thus the appellant was not heard by the revisional authority. The A
proviso to Section34 mandates grant of reasonable opportunity of being
heard to any person who is likely to be affected by the order.
[Paras 9, 16, 19 and 20] (448-D, E; 450-C-D; 449-E; 450-E]
Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., B
(2007] 5 sec 211, relied on.
1.2. The development cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.