Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2010 (8) TMI 1071 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Statute - Validity of the acquisition of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 - Meaning of word Encumbrance - appellant contended that the land should not have been acquired under the Act 1976 as on the date of commencement of the Act the land was not within urban limits - exercising the Revisional power. HELD THAT - Undoubtedly Section 34 does not prescribe any limitation during which the Revisional power can be exercised by the State Government either on application or suo moto. The question does arise as to whether absence of limitation in Section 34 confers unfettered power to vary or revoke the order of the prescribed authority without any outside limitation in point of duration i.e. does it confer an everlasting or interminable power in point of time. If the contention raised by Mr. Ganguly that such provisions of Section 34 do not prescribe any limitation and it confers an interminable power upon the State Government in point of time to exercise the Revisional power is accepted there will be no finality of the proceedings taken under the Act 1976. The legislature in its wisdom did not fix a time limit for exercising the revisional power nor inserted the words at any time in Section 34 of the Act 1976. It does not mean that the legislature intended to leave the orders passed under the Act open to variation for an indefinite period inasmuch as it would have the effect of rendering title of the holders/allottee(s) permanently precarious and in a state of perpetual uncertainty. In case it is assumed that the legislature has conferred an everlasting and interminable power in point of time the title over the declared surplus land in the hands of the State/allottee would forever remain virtually insecure. Thus we reach the inescapable conclusion that the Revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at belated stage for the reason that the order passed in Revision under Section 34 of the Act 1976 is a judicial order. What should be reasonable time would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Undoubtedly the Act 1976 stood repealed by the Act 1999. However it has no bearing on this case for the reason that proceeding pending in any Court relating to the Act 1976 stood abated provided the possession of the land had not been taken from the owner. Therefore in a case where the possession has been taken the repeal of the Act would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land. Therefore the law as exists today is that the land in dispute could be subjected to the provisions of the Act 1976 with effect from 17.5.1976 i.e. the date on which the suit land came within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The Act stood repealed in 1999 but the proceedings pending in any court would stand abated provided the tenure-holder was in possession of the land on the date of the commencement of the Act 1999. The High Court has taken note of the fact that the appellant s revision had been entertained only on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum 1993 (3) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT which stood over-ruled by the subsequent judgment in N. Audikesava Reddy 2001 (11) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT . The aforesaid factual position makes it clear that the appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever as per the law as it exists today. The land once vested in the State cannot be divested. Once the land is vested in the State it has a right to change the user. The appellant cannot be heard raising grievance on either of these issues. Thus in view of the above the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
|