STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. ETC. versus MRS. KAMAL SUKUMAR DURGULE AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 28-11-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. ETC. 
"· 
MRS. KAMAL SUKUMAR DURGULE AND ORS. ETC. 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALL, 
v.o. TUL7.APURKAR, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND 
A. VARADARAIAN, JJ.j 
November 28, 1984 
Consttlution of India, 19SO : 
(I) Articles 14, 19 (/) (f) and 31-Act paJSed by a State Legislature-
No guidelines for exercise of discretion provided-Neither proper classification 
nor provls/on /or nqtice to affected pe~sons made-Constitutional validity oi. 
(ii) Entries 18, 64 and 65 of List II-Whether State Legislature com .. 
petent to pass the ft,faharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthor/sed 
Occupation and Summary 1~·victlon) Act, 197S. 
Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition ofUnauthoriJed Occ11patfon &: 
Summary Eviction) Act 1975, ss. 2(/J, 3, 4, -4A, 4B read w;th Maharashtra 
Vacant Land!(Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation & Summary Evkli~n) 
(Service of Notice) Rules 1975-Constitutional validity of-Whether guidelines 
for exercise of discretion &. Proper classification and provision/or notice to 
affected persons provided tn the Act-Rules framed subsequently regarding 
provision of notice to affected persons-Whether cures the unconst/lut/onality 
of the Act, 
The Maharashta Vacant Lands fProhibition of Unauthorised Occu .. 
pation and Summary Eviction) Act, LXVI of 1975 passed by the State of 
Maharashtra was amended twice-first by Act No. XXXVII of 1976 and later 
by Act No. VII of 1977. Section 2 (f) as amended retrospectively by the 
First Amendment Act divides .. Vacant land" into four categories: (I) lands 
which are in fact vacant, that is to say, not bllilt upon; (2) lands on which 
structures have been or are being constructed otherwise than in accordance 
with any law regulating the construction of such structures and which the 
Competent Authority may specify and declare to be vacant lands by 
announcing by beat of drum or other suitable means ; (3) lands specified 
in the Schedule to the Act, and (4) lands included in the Schedule by the 
State Government by an order amending the Schedule. Section 3 provides 
that no person shall occupy or enect any~ shelter enclosure or other 
structure on such land for the purposes of residence or otherwise without 
the express permission of the Muni:ipal Corporation and also prohibits any 
per$on to collec~ ffom the occupier of such v~caqt land any amount by way 
B 
c 
D 
E 
E 
G 
n 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 2 S.C.R. 
of rent or compensation in relation to the unauthorised occupation of such 
vacant Jand while it empowers lhe govern1nent to collect or receive from the 
occupier of such vacant land such reasonable amount by way of penal 
charges as may be determined till such time as the structure erected in 
contravention cf the provisions of s. 3 is removed from the land. Section 4 
empowers the government to evict a person occupying any vacant land in an 
Urban area in contravention of the provisions of s. 3. Section 4A deals with 
permission for renovation of structures on vacant lands as a temporary 
measure in certaian circumstances. Section 4B lays down mode or recovery 
of dues of financial institutions which render assistance for renovation of 
structures. 
The respondents were owners of son1e plots of land in ·Bon1bay. The 
plots were assessed to non-agricultural assessment and to Property tax by 
the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The respondents had constructed 
buildings of a permanent nature on the plots and the same had been 
provided with essential civic amenities like water and electricity. The 
appellants~State Government & Municipal Corporation of Bombay called 
upon the respondents to demolish the buildings, since they were constructed 
without the requisite permission· of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, The 
respondent's request to regularise l the unauthorised construction was also 
rejected becau~e the Government was considering a Proposal for acquisition 
of the said land for the purpose of an industrial estate. The respondents 
then approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting that the 
Jand be released from acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer informed 
the respondents that the said plots of land had been released from 
acquisition by a notification dated September 14, 1964. But, later on, the 
said plots of land were declared by the Competent Authority as "vacant 
land" in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 2 (f) (b) of the 
Maharashtra: Vacant La

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.