TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for a declaration that the provisions of the U.L.C. Act were not applicable to the said land and for necessary certificate to that effect. By order dated 19/2/1999, respondent 2 declared that the provisions of the U.L.C. Act were not applicable to the said land. (c). The petitioner decided to develop the said land. He got the necessary plans sanctioned on 29/6/2001. He obtained N.A. Permission on 21/8/2003. The development of the land was complete to the extent of about 80%. On 7/9/2006, the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation directed the petitioner to stop the construction on the said land. (d). On 14/3/2007, the Government of Maharashtra by Government Resolution proposed to repeal the U.L.C. Act for the State of Maharashtra. On 8/8/2007, respondent 2 directed the petitioner to remain present before the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 13/8/2007 at 11.30 a.m. in respect of hearing under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act. Accordingly, the petitioner's lawyer remained present and inter alia pointed out that it was not lawful to exercise revisional powers in respect of the orders which were passed and concluded eight years ago. It was pointed out that eight years' peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 15/11/2007. It is true that it is on 29/11/2007 that the Repeal Act came into force and U.L.C. Act was repealed. But the State Government had by resolution dated 14/3/2007 proposed to repeal the U.L.C. Act for the State of Maharashtra and it was subsequently repealed. To such a situation, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted. The State Government could not have invoked its suo motu power under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act that too, after a period of eight years. 6. Mr. Gorwadkar further submitted that in any case, exercise of power under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act after eight years is illegal and must be set aside. If the State Government wanted to exercise its revisional powers, it should have done it within a reasonable time. It was obligatory on the State Government to consider intervening circumstances and subsequent events so as to come to a conclusion whether revisional powers should be exercised or not. Mr. Gorwadkar submitted that in this case, the State Government has failed to do so and, therefore, the impugned order must be set aside. In support of this submission, Mr. Gorwadkar relied on the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharasht ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the land within 30 days. The landowners preferred an appeal under Section 33 against the order passed under Section 10(3). The Appellate Authority held that the appeal was not maintainable. After lapse of more than a decade, on 21/5/1990, a power of attorney holder of one of the landlholders preferred a revision to the State Government under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act. The revision was held not maintainable. Three years' thereafter, a second revision under Section 34 was filed. The Revisional Authority observed that it was proved that the applicant had not been given sufficient opportunity for showing the ownership documents to the Competent Authority and prima facie, the order of the Competent Authority was wrong. In exercise of power under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act, the order of the Competent Authority was set aside and the case was remitted for reconsideration to the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Pune after giving sufficient opportunity to the applicant. 10. The Corporation was not joined as party respondent. The Corporation therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition and directed the Appellate Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised after lapse of 20 years. The Supreme Court referred to Pune Municipal Corporation's case (supra) and observed that when the State Government exercises powers under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act, it has to examine whether after long lapse of time, any action is warranted. In this exercise, filing of revision petition within a reasonable time is inbuilt. The Supreme Court observed that what would be the reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case and no straitjacket formula can be adopted or applied. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Automotive Research Association of India and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2003 (1) Bom.C.r. 278, had an occasion to consider a case where the Minister had exercised revisional powers 17 years after notification under which land had vested in the State. This Court held that power of revision under Section 34 can be exercised by the State suo motu if appeal has not been filed by the aggrieved party and that this power to correct illegality has to be exercised within a reasonable period. This Court held that three years' period would be a reasonable period. 13. In Smt. Meena Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial facts were suppressed from the court. It was urged that the possession of the land was never handed over to the Port Trust Authorities. The High Court in the circumstances recalled its order. That order was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that a fraud was committed. The Supreme Court observed that from the record, it was clear that neither the land owners nor the Port Trust were in actual possession of the land, but it was occupied by tenants and disputes were also going on between the tenants and landowners. Therefore, the basis on which the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling proceeded to decide the matter was non-existent and non est. The Supreme Court considered several judgments, which have taken a view that no judgment of the court can be said to be a judgment, if it is obtained by fraud. The Supreme Court observed that in view of the serious allegation of fraud said to have been committed by the landowners in collusion with officers of the Port Trust and the Government, the High Court was justified in recalling the order, setting aside the order of the Competent Authority under Section 34 of the U.L.C. Act. 15. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
