LexPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS FEBRUARY 26, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] B Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976: Sections 6, 8, 9, JO, 33 and 34-Draft statement under Section 8(1), properly addressed, sought to be served on declarants received back C undelivered, treated as served and finalized without any change-Final order as required by Section 9 passed, notification under Section 10(1) issued intimating persons having interest in land to prefer their claims to Competent Authority within specified time, declaration that excess land was to be acquired by State free from all encumbrances issued notification under D Section 10(3) and, applying Section 10(5), possession handed over to a Corporation against payment of price by them-Declaration of land being ir. excess and issuance of final statement remaining unchallenged-However, land owners' appeal against orders under Section 10(3) and 10(5) summarily dismissed as non-maintainable-After more than a decade of dismissal of appeal, one of land owners filing a revision but that also disposed of as non- E maintainable-More than three years thereafter petition of another land owner for revision of earlier orders allowed with directions to give them sufficient opportunity of hearing-High Court not setting aside order in second revision on ground that no notice was served on land-owners before declaring their land to be excess and vacant, that order was violative of F natural justice, there was no valid vesting of land in State and allowing petition of Corporation would result in revival of an illegal order- Correctness of-Held-As no appeal or revision was preferred against order under Section 8, it became final and unless it was set aside, it could not be termed as illegal or void order; setting aside by High Court of order in second revision would not have resulted in restoration of any illegal order G -Appeal against order under Section 10(3) was rightly held to be not maintainable-Order in second revision was not sustainable as it did not consider length of delay, earlier appeal as well as first revision, and prejudiced the Corporation since it was passed without notice to them; these 277 H 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R. A c irc11111stances could not be ignored merely on ground that order under Section 8 was unlawful-The Corporation was an 'affected' party as \' - · possession of land was given to them on payment of price and they were proceeding ll'ith construction thereon-Res integra found inapplicable- Matter remitted to Revisional Authority for fresh decision after hearing the B parties, including the Corporation. Sections 34-Revisional powers. Nature of-Held-Remedy of revision was alternative to appeal under Section 33 and not additional or supplementwy. -+ c Exercise of-Held-Though it could be exercised suo motto by State Government, that did not mean that a party cannot invoke such jurisdiction- Revision could be flied by a party inviting attention to illegality or impropriety of any order passed under the A ct. D limitation for exercise of-Held-Though the Act did not fix period of limitation, concept of 'reasonable time' was applicable and power. must be exercised within that period-What could be length of reasonable time would dependent on facts and circumstances of each case, and no rule of universal application could be laid down. E Respondents were owners of certain lands and had filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The Competent Authority prepared draft statement under Section 8(1) and sought it to be served to them in accordance with Section 8(3). Thereafter, it passed an order under Section 8(4) observing that as the aforesaid notice properly addressed was received back undelivered, it was treated as served and finalized F without any change. Accordingly, a final order as required by Section 9 came to be passed. A notification under Section 10(1) was issued intimating the persons having interest in the land to prefer their claims to the Competent Authority within the time period specified therein. Thereafter, the Competent Authority issued notification under Section 10(3) declaring excess land to be G acquired by the State free from all encumbrances and offered it to the appellant-Corporation for an occupancy price. Accordingly, it issued notice under Section 10
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.