Vidyanand S/O Upasrao Masarkar and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Principal Sec. Dept. of Urban Development and Urban Land Ceiling, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vidyanand S/O Upasrao Masarkar and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Principal Sec. Dept. of Urban Development and Urban Land Ceiling, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Declaration that the ULC proceedings in Case No. 2660/1976 in respect of Survey No. 37/A (Old Survey No. 68), Mouza Wanadongri, Tah. Hingna, District Nagpur have lapsed; petition allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the ULC proceedings in respect of Survey No. 37/A (Old Survey No. 68), Mouza Wanadongri, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur have lapsed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 for want of delivery of possession under Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act.

Court's answer

A mere entry in the 7/12 extract, which is for a fiscal purpose, cannot be said to satisfy the requirement of Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act of demonstrating delivery of possession.

Ratio / Principle

Since delivery of possession is not demonstrated on record, Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 does not stand satisfied.

Key takeaways

The ULC proceedings in Case No. 2660/1976 in respect of land bearing survey 37/A (Old Survey No. 68) admeasuring 2.10 HR, mouza Wanadongri, Tah. Hingna, District Nagpur stand lapsed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No. 3488 of 2024, decided 24-02-2025 (Avinash G. Gharote & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.) - Lapse of ULC proceedings: A mere entry in the 7/12 extract, being for a fiscal purpose, does not satisfy the requirement of Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act of demonstrating delivery of possession. Although a S. 10(3) notification was published on 1.11.2007, the S. 10(5) notice dated 7.11.2007 indicated no date for taking possession, and apart from a 7/12 entry no material showed taking over of possession of the surplus land (19500 sqmtrs remaining after retention of 1500 sqmtrs from Survey No. 37/A, Old Survey No. 68, Mouza Wanadongri, Tah. Hingna, Nagpur, declared surplus by order dated 4.5.1987 following the S. 6(a) declaration of 29.9.1976). Delivery of possession thus not being demonstrated, Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 stood unsatisfied, and the ULC proceedings in Case No. 2660/1976 were held to have lapsed. Petition allowed and disposed of accordingly.

1 20wp3488.2024..odt

2025:BHC-NAG:1876-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2024

(Shri Vidyanand s/o Upasrao Masarkar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Urban Development and ULC, Mumbai and ors)

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. S.M. Puranik, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATED : 24-02-2025

The petition seeks a declaration, that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of Survey No. 37/A (Old Survey No.68) admeasuring 2.10 HR of Mouza Wanadongri, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur has lapsed. It is an admitted position, that declaration U/s 6(a) o the ULC Act was filed on 29.9.1976 on account of which after permitting the original owner, to retain 1500 sqmtrs of land, by the order 4.5.1987 (p54-A) was passed by the competent authority. The balance 19500 sqmtrs of land, was declared as surplus. A notification u/s 10(3) of the ULC Act, came to be published in the official gazette on 1.11.2007 (p58). It is however contended, that possession of the land has not been taken in terms of Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act on account of which in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 the proceedings stands lapsed.

What is necessary to note, is that the notice u/s 10(5) of the ULC Act placed on record dated 7.11.2007 does not indicate any date on which possession is to be taken(p59). There is no other material on record placed by the

2 20wp3488.2024..odt

respondents to indicate taking over of the possession, of the land in question, except for an entry in the 7/12 extract (p78). Mere entry in the 7/12 extract, which is for a fiscal purpose, cannot be said to satisfy the requirement of Sec. 10(5) of the ULC Act of demonstrating delivery of possession. That being the position, since, the delivery of possession is not demonstrated on record, Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 does not stands satisfied in view of which, it will have to be held, that the ULC proceedings in Case No. 2660/1976 in respect of land bearing survey 37/A (Old Survey No. 68) admeasuring 2.10 HR, mouza Wanadongri, Tah. Hingna, District Nagpur stands lapsed. Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Belkhede