LexSMT. DAROTHI CLARE PARREIRA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. DAROTHI CLARE PARREIRA AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. JULY 25, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 : Sectio11s 3, 6 to 10, 20, 21 and 36. C Land ceilin~Detennination of surplus /and-Procedure fo1-Man11er of disposal of application under Sections 20 and 21-Landowner found i11 possessio11 of swplus /and-Notification under Section 10(3) published vest- ing the excess land in the Govemment-Application under section 21 filed much after the date of vesting and publication of 11otificatio11 u11der Se~tio11 10(3)-Clzalle11ge to notification-Held on publication of notification excess D vacant land stands vested in State free from all encwnberances subject to decision in appeal-The effect of the vesting is not contingent upon filing an application for disposal under either Section 20 or 21-lt cannot be said that the competent authority has no power to have the notification under Section 10(3) published in the Gazette until the application either under Section 20 E F or 21 is disposed of-171e ve1y language of Sections 20 and 21 and the exercise of the power thereunder would a1ise only when the land stands vested in the Government. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3331 of 1982. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.92 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 877 of 1979. Bhimrao Naik, V.A. Bobde, R.P. Bhatt, B.V. Desai, A.I. Talegwkar, Cecil, Fallerio, Ms. Meeta Sharma, P.J. Mehta, M.D. Adkar, Mukul G Mudgal, M.N. Shroff, Ms. Reema Bhandari, Dr. R.B. Masodkar, S.M. Jadhav, D.M. nargolkar, Yatin Sharma, A.M. Khanwilkar, S.S. Jauhar, (NP) for the appearing parties. The following drder of the Court was delivered : H This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 46 • DAROTHICIAREPARREIRA v.STATE 47 Bench of the Bombay High Court made on September 24, 1982 in W.P. A No. 877/79. The undisputed facts are that the appellants were the erstwhile owners of G.T.S. Nos. 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3 in Pune on land of an extent of 20,948.40 sq. meters. After the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976) (for short, the "Act") had c0me into force, the appellants filed their return under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority had issued notice on September 20, 1977. The appellants had filed their objec- tions on December 7, 1977. They also filed application under Section 20 B c for exemption. By proceedings dated December 22, 1977, the objections on final statement were over-ruled and the appellants were found to be in possession of surplus land admeasuring 13,410.88 sq. meters. Then the objection on final statement came to be called and the same was under Secllon 10(2) of the Act considered and rejected. Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published vesting the excess land in the Government w.e.f. March 12, 1979 and the same came to be published in D the State Gazette on February 16, 1978. There after the appellants have filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on the ground of !aches. The appellants filed the writ petition challenging the validity of the notification under Section 10(3) which was upheld. From the record, it would appear that the application filed under E Section 20 was disposed of on January 22, 1979 and thereafter the publi- cation under Section 10(3) came to be made. It also now turns out that on March 29, 1979, the appellants made an application under Section 21 and simultaneously, they filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the notification issued under Section 10(3). The Division Bench held that the F procedure followed by the competent authority was not vitiated by any error of law. Since the land had already been vested in the Stale on March 12, 1979 pursuant to the notification published under Section 10(3), the question of further opportunity to the appellants did not arise. When the matter was heard by this Court on November 21, 1995, Shri Bhimrao Naik, learned senior counsel, had drawn our attention to the fact that his applica- G lion made under Section 21 was pending consideration. The appellants had not mentioned the fact of their filing application under Section 20 and rejection thereof before the publication of the notification under Section 10(3). Since it was contended that the application was pending, we directed the counsel for the State to find out as to the stage of the matter. In H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.