Disposed

Shri. Kiba @ Anna Hajare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2015PIL/56/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that after the Urban Land (Cealing and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into effect on 29th November 2007, the power to modify orders under section 8(4) of the ULC Act ceased. Consequently, no relief could be granted in the petition challenging the State's enforcement direction, and the matter was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as no effective relief could be granted following the enactment of the Urban Land (Cealing and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

Shri. Kiba @ Anna Hajare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

pil56

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.56 OF 2003

¶5

Anna Hajare & Others ...Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr.Rahul Kadam for the petitioners
Mr.D.B.Khaire, Addl.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.K.MENON, JJ.
 DATE : JANUARY 23, 2015

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶9

1 None appears for the petitioners. We have perused the petition and the specific challenge therein. The petition arises under the provisions of the Urban Land (Cealing and Regulation) Act,1976 (for short ULC Act'). The Apex Court in its decision in the case of**Atia Mohammadi Begum** Vs. **State of Uttar Pradesh & Others**<sup>**1**</sup> ,held that when a land was not a vacant land on the date of commencement of the ULC Act, the Authorities cannot convert that land into a vacant land by their unilateral acts by including it in the master plan for any purpose other than agriculture. In the subsequent decision of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of**State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.** Vs. **N. Audikesava Reddy & Others**<sup>**2**</sup> **, t**he Apex Court held that the decision in the case of Atia Begum was not correct. The Apex Court held that for determining whether a`

¶10

1 AIR 1993 SC 2465

¶11

2 AIR 2002 SC 5

¶12

pil56

¶13

¶14

particular land is a vacant land or not for the
purpose of ULC Act, a master plan prepared as per
the law in force subsequent to the enforcement of
the ULC Act shall be taken into consideration. On 8th
July 2002, the State Government issued a direction
to all the Additional Collectors cum Competent
Authorities under the ULC Act directing that the
review/revision of all the orders passed under sub-
section (4) of section 8 of the ULC Act on the basis
of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Atia Begum should be undertaken. On 25th November
2002, another direction was issued by the State
Government directing that earlier direction to
undertake review/revision will apply only to those
orders under sub-section (4) of section 8 of the ULC
Act which were made after the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh. The
said decision was rendered on 6th November 2001.
Therefore, under the communication dated 25th
November 2002, a direction was issued that only in
case of those orders which have been passed under
sub-section (4) of section (8) after 6th November
2001 relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Atia Begum, review/revision shall be
undertaken. By this PIL, the challenge is to the
said communication dated 25th November 2002. The
substantive prayer is to direct all the Authorities
to implement the directions contained in the earlier
direction dated 8th July 2002.

¶15

2In this petition, there is no interim order
passed by this Court. As of today, even if the

¶16

pil56

¶17

¶18

petitioners are to succeed by establishing
illegality of the directions issued on 25th November
2002, the question is whether any effective relief
can be granted in this petition. The Urban Land
(Cealing and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 (for short
`the Repeal Act') became applicable to the State
with effect from 29th November 2007. We have perused
the provisions of the Repeal Act and in particular
sections 3 and 4 thereof. After having perused
sections 3 and 4 thereof, we find that the power
under section 34 of the ULC Act of entertaining a
revision has not been saved. Moreover, what is saved
is the proceedings in relation to sections 11,12,13
and 14 of the ULC Act. Sections 11 to 14
essentially deal with the payment of amount for
acquisition of vacant land. Thus, after 29th
November 2007, now no Authority of the State
Government can exercise any power of amending or
modifying the order under sub-section (4) of section
8 of the ULC Act.

¶19

3In view of this subsequent event of the
enforcement of Repeal Act with effect from 29th
November 2007, no relief can be granted in this PIL.

¶20

4Accordingly, PIL is disposed of. Rule is
discharged.

¶21

(A.K.MENON,J.)

Shri. Kiba @ Anna Hajare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kiba @ Anna Hajare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs Union of India and Anr.

Feeedom Firm Vs Commissioner of Police, Pune and Ors.

Ravindra S/O Parasramji Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mumbai and 6

Shri. Rajaram Pandurang Mukne and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vikas Sahaji Gaiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale Vs Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shri. Areppuzhekara Chandi Joseph Vs Dr. Shyam Gholap and Anr.

Jaypal Kallappa Borgave Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department and Ors. Vs Litigants Association, Maharashtra (Pakshakar Sangh)

The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs the High Court of Mumbai through Registrar General

Maruti Sakharam Waghre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.