LexSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus SAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1105 [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1105 1105 STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. (Civil Appeal No. 6490 of 2014) NOVEMBER 23, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – ss. 3 and 4 – Applicability of – Land acquisition proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Land in question was declared as access vacant land by Competent Authority as well as Appellate authority – Writ Petition against the orders of the authorities was dismissed for non-prosecution – Restoration application dismissed observing that fresh petition might be filed, if permissible – The fresh writ petition High Court by interim order directed that the authorities might take over the possession of the vacant surplus land – The State took the stand that possession of the surplus land had already been taken over on 25.04.1988 – However, the High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the 1976 Act had been repealed and the compensation for surplus land had not been paid – The State filed appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: Before declaring the proceedings as having abated in view of ss. 3 and 4 of 1999 Act, it has to be considered and decided whether possession of the surplus land has been taken over by the Government – In absence of such possession, the proceedings cannot be declared as having abated – In the impugned judgment High Court has failed to consider and has not given any specific finding on the aspect of possession – Failure to pay the compensation, cannot raise presumption as to failure of possession – Matter remanded to High Court to decide the same afresh – High Court is also directed to consider the maintainability of the fresh writ petition as the previous writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It cannot be disputed that in the impugned judgment and order the High A B C D E F G H 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R. Court has not at all considered the merits of the case and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 01.03.1984 and the order passed by the First Appellate Court – Board of Revenue dated 05.05.1987 solely on the ground that the Act, 1976 has been repealed and that the compensation for the surplus land has not been paid. The High Court has noted that in the resolution adopting the Repeal Act, 1999, it has been declared that no compensation should be paid for lands, possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government after vesting under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 and the legal process initiated under the said Act will also be closed. [Para 4][1112-B-E] 2. The High Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. A fair reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 makes it clear that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act (Act, 1976) pending immediately before the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate. Section 4 of the Repeal Act shall not apply provided possession of land has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. Therefore, if the possession of the surplus land/land has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority, in that case, the proceedings relating to any order made under the principal Act, 1976 shall not abate, meaning thereby that the Repeal Act, 1999 shall not affect all those proceedings with respect to the land of which the possession has been taken over. Therefore, before declaring the proceedings as having abated in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, it has to be considered and decided whether possession of the surplus land/land has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority or not. If it is found and held that the possession of the surplus land has been taken over, in that case, the proceedings shall not be declared as having been abated. [Paras 4.1 and 4.2][1112-F-G; 1113-F-H; 1114-A-C] A B C D E F G H 1107 3. In the present case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.