VINAYAK KASHINATH SHILKAR versus DY. COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 29-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 219 
VINAYAK KASHINATH SHILKAR 
V. 
DY. COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND 
OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 2615 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 29, 2012. 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) REPEAL 
A 
B 
ACT, 1999: 
C 
s.3 (2) read with ss. 3(1)(a) and 10(3) - Abatement of 
proceedings initiated under the 1976 Act - Held: Mere vesting 
of vacant land with State Government by operation of law 
without actual possession is not sufficient for operation of 0 
. s.3(1)(a) - In the instant case, the possession of the subject 
land has not been taken by State Government and, therefore, 
appellant was entitled to the relief and High Court ought to 
have declared that the proceedings under the Act in relation 
to the subject property' stood abated - It is declared accordingly E 
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court stating that the proceedings under the Urban Land 
(Ceiling and Regulation)·Act, 1976 (the Act), in respect of 
the subject land be declared as abated in view of the 
F 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 
(Repeal Act), which came to be adopted and became 
operative in the State of Maharashtra w.e.f. 29.11.2007. It 
was stated in the writ petition that the possession of the 
subject land was with the petitioner and at no point of G 
time his possession was disturbed or attempted to be 
taken by the respondents. The Division Bench of the 
High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the 
possession of the .property had already been taken by the 
219 
H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A State Government under the Act. Aggrieved, the writ 
· petitioner filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is clear from the provisions of s. 3 of the , 
B Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 
that where the possession of the vacant land has not 
been taken over by the State Government or by any 
person duly authorised by the State Government in this 
behalf or by the Competent Authority, the proceedings 
c under the Act would not survive. Mere vesting of the 
vacant land with the State Government by operation of 
law without actual possession is not sufficient for 
operation of s.3(1 )(a) of the Repeal Act. [para 1 O] [233-F-
D 
G] 
Ritesh Tiwari & Anr . . vs. State of U. 0. & Ors. 2010 (11) 
SCR 589 = 2010 (10) SCC 677 - relied on. 
1.2 In view of the legal position enunciated by this 
Court in Ritesh Tewari1 and the factual situation that the 
E possession of the subject land has not been taken by the 
State Government, the appellant was entitled to the relief 
in terms of para 9(b) in the writ petition and the High Court 
ought to have declared that the proceedings under the 
Act in relation to the subject property stood abated. It is 
F declared accordingly. [para 12] [234-F-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
. 2010 (11) SCR 589 
relied on 
para 11 
' ' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
G 2615 of 2012. 
'From the Judgment & Order dated 05.01.2009 of the High 
Court of Judictaure at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4867 
of2008. 
H 
U.U. Lalit, Amol Chitale,Jessal Wahi, Nirnimesh bube for 
VINAYAK KASHINATH SHILKAR v. DY. COLLECTOR 221 
& COMPETENT AUTHORITY 
the Appellant. 
Uday B. Dube, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner before the 
High Court. In the Writ Petition, he prayed that the proceedings 
A 
B 
in respect of the land bearing survey No. 195, Hissa No. 2 (New 
195/1) of Village Parsik, District Thane under the Urban Land 
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") on the . C 
basis of the return filed by Nabibai Tukaram Patil may be 
declared as abated in view of the repeal of the Act. The 
appellant asserted that the possession of the subject land was 
with him and at no point of time, his possession was ever 
disturbed or attempted to be taken by the respondents. 
3. In response to the Writ Petition, a reply affidavit was filed 
·by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane 
Urban Agglomeration, Thane before the High Court. In 
paragraph 3 of that affidavit, it is stated that notice under 
Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 
February 25, 2005 calling upon the appellant to hand over the 
possession of the subject land within 30 days from the receipt 
of 

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