Allowed

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2014WP/3781/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a writ petition declaring that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, stood abated because the government failed to take possession of excess land by the prescribed date. Consequently, the petition was disposed of on this declaration.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that proceedings under the ULC Act stood abated on November 29, 2007. Respondents directed to take consequential steps.

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp3781.11

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3781 OF 2011

¶6

Baburao Maruti Dalavi : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents

¶7

Mr.R.P.Walvekar for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : APRIL 08, 2014. P.C.:

¶11

Order dated 19.03.2014 records that the petition will be disposed

¶12

of finally at the stage of admission.

¶13

Today the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.1 and 2

¶14

states that in spite of several communications, the second Respondent has not responded.

¶15

The controversy involved in this petition is very short. The

¶16

Petitioner is the owner of lands bearing R.S. no.167/2, admeasuring

1 of 4

wp3781.11

krs

9,000 sq. mtr., situated at Ujlaiwadi, taluka Karveer, dist. Kolhapur. A return was filed by the Petitioner under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the “U.L.C. Act”). The case made out in the petition is that a Final Statement under section 9 of the ULC Act was prepared and an area to the extent of 2,900 sq. mtrs. was allowed to be retained by the Petitioner. A part of the land was acquired for National Highway no.4. On 10.04.2007, a notification under subsection (1) of section 10 of the ULC Act was published. On 09.08.2007, a notification under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the U.L.C. Act was published. On 27.11.2008, a notice was issued by the second Respondent to the Petitioner under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the U.L.C. Act calling upon the Petitioner to hand over possession of the excess land.

¶21

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Voltas Ltd . v. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority (2008 (5) All M.R. 537). His submission is that as the possession of excess land was not taken over in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 10 of the U.L.C. Act on or before 29.11.2007, the proceedings under the U.L.C. Act stood abated in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short the “Repeal Act”).

¶22

wp3781.11

¶23

krs

¶24

As the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has not received any instructions, we called upon the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner to produce a photocopy of the notice issued under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the U.L.C. Act. The photocopy tendered is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. Thus, the notice was issued under sub-section (5) of section 10 after 29.11.2007. As the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has not received any instructions, he is not in a position to make a statement as to the correctness of the notice issued under subsection (5) of section 10 of the U.L.C. Act.

¶25

Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd . (supra) as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vinayak Kashianth Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority [(2012) 4 SCC 718], as the possession of the excess land was not taken over in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 10 of the U.L.C. Act, on or before 29.11.2007, the proceedings in relation to the land of the Petitioners under the U.L.C. Act stood abated.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition must succeed and we pass the following order:

3 of 4

wp3781.11

krs

O R D E R

(i) We declare that the proceedings in relation to excess land of the Petitioner described in paragraph 3 of the petition under the provisions of the U.L.C. Act stood abated on 29.11.2007. The Respondents shall take consequential steps on the basis of this declaration.

¶32

(ii)The petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶33

4 of 4

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Element Learning Centre Private Limited and Ors. Vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde Vs Smt. Aparna Atul Salagare and Ors.

Mrutyunjay Ashram, through President, Mr. Jayant Gopal Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar Vs the Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shivaji Babaji Kamble and Ors. Vs the Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.