1999 JTR(SC) 270
1999 AIR(SC) 2281 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 2340 ; 1999 2 JT 132 ; 1999 3 SCC 5 ; 1999 1 UJ 659 ; 1999 KHC 1109 ; 1999 2 Supreme 510
1999(2) Supreme 510
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Shivgonda Anna Patil & Ors. -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8253 of 1995
Decided on 9-3-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In-person.
For the Respondents : D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Sushma Suri and K.L. Taneja, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.31(a)(1)
URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATIONS ACT : S.10(3), S.33, S.6, S.10(5), S.34, S.9, S.10(1), S.11
(A) The applicability of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is governed by Sections 6, 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 11, and 33, read with Article 31-A(1) and its second proviso of the Constitution. Section 6 mandates the declaration of excess land, Section 9 vests title upon notification, Section 10(1) validates such declarations, Section 10(3) provides for vesting in the State, and Section 10(5) governs possession. These provisions were held valid under Article 31-A as they pertain to compulsory acquisition for public purpose, with compensation addressed separately and not tied to market rates for agricultural land. The proceedings were initiated by declaration under Section 6, followed by vesting under Section 10(3), and challenged post-vesting, invoking the bar of finality under Article 10(1) and limitation principles.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of finality of administrative orders, the constitutionality of land ceiling laws under Article 31-A, non-justiciability of policy decisions, procedural bar of limitation, and the requirement of timely objection by interested parties.
Facts of the case:
The appellant's father died in 1965, and land under Survey No. 228/3 was inherited and mutated in 1966. Upon the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a statement was filed under Section 6. In 1979, the Competent Authority declared 6,100 sq. m. as excess land, which was vested in the State under Section 10(3) via notification in 1983. A possession notice under Section 10(5) was issued in 1986. The appellant later challenged the excess land determination, claiming non-consideration of a sisters share, but the plea was rejected, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the challenge to be without substance. The constitutional validity of the Act was already upheld. The determination of excess land was final, and no appeal or revision was filed. The sister, despite knowing of the proceedings, did not object before vesting and filed the petition belatedly.
Issues:
Whether the order declaring and vesting excess land is subject to appeal or revision.
Whether the Acts provisions violate Article 31-A(1) and the second proviso.
Whether a belated challenge can be entertained after vesting and ten years.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Acts provisions are constitutionally valid as they relate to compulsory acquisition for public purpose. The finality of administrative orders, procedural delay, and failure to raise objections pre-entitlement bar the challenge. Compensation at market rate is not mandated for excess land acquisition.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A) The applicability of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is governed by Sections 6, 9, 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 11, and 33, read with Article 31-A(1) and its second proviso of the Constitution. Section 6 mandates the declaration of excess land, Section 9 vests title upon notification, Section 10(1) validates such declarations, Section 10(3) provides for vesting in the State, and Section 10(5) governs possession. These provisions were held valid under Article 31-A as they pertain to compulsory acquisition for public purpose, with compensation addressed separately and not tied to market rates for agricultural land. The proceedings were initiated by declaration under Section 6, followed by vesting under Section 10(3), and challenged post-vesting, invoking the bar of finality under Article 10(1) and limitation principles.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of finality of administrative orders, the constitutionality of land ceiling laws under Article 31-A, non-justiciability of policy decisions, procedural bar of limitation, and the requirement of timely objection by interested parties.
Facts of the case:
The appellant's father died in 1965, and land under Survey No. 228/3 was inherited and mutated in 1966. Upon the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a statement was filed under Section 6. In 1979, the Competent Authority declared 6,100 sq. m. as excess land, which was vested in the State under Section 10(3) via notification in 1983. A possession notice under Section 10(5) was issued in 1986. The appellant later challenged the excess land determination, claiming non-consideration of a sisters share, but the plea was rejected, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the challenge to be without substance. The constitutional validity of the Act was already upheld. The determination of excess land was final, and no appeal or revision was filed. The sister, despite knowing of the proceedings, did not object before vesting and filed the petition belatedly.
Issues:
Whether the order declaring and vesting excess land is subject to appeal or revision.
Whether the Acts provisions violate Article 31-A(1) and the second proviso.
Whether a belated challenge can be entertained after vesting and ten years.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Acts provisions are constitutionally valid as they relate to compulsory acquisition for public purpose. The finality of administrative orders, procedural delay, and failure to raise objections pre-entitlement bar the challenge. Compensation at market rate is not mandated for excess land acquisition.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 994/93. The appellants had challenged the order dated 20th September, 1979 passed by the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Sangli and also the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act on the ground that they are violative of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution. The High Court summarily dismissed the Writ Petition.
2. The appellants’ case in the Writ Petition was that their father died in the year 1965 and on his death, land bearing Survey No. 228/3 was inherited by them. It was mutated in the name of the eldest son on 25.2.66. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the appellant No. 1 filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act on 4.9.76. Thereafter, on 20.9.79, the Competent Authority declared 6,100 sq. m. as vacant and excess land. A Notification to that effect and vesting of it in Government under Section 10(3) was issued on 5.5.83. Notice under Section 10(5) for taking possession of the excess land was issued on 31.3.86. The appellant No. 1 on coming to know of it approached the Deputy Collector and the competent authority with a request to re-open the proceedings on the ground that while determining excess land, the competent authority had not taken into consideration share of his sister in the joint family property. The competent authority refused to re-open the case and therefore the appellants were required to file Writ Petition.
3. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has to be rejected as its validity has already been upheld by this Court. (See Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji etc. v. UOI & Ors.1). Moreover, the contention raised by the appellant that as no provision has been made in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act regarding payment of compensation at market rate for acquisition of agricultural land, it is violative of the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution, is thorougly misconceived as what is taken over by the State is the excess vacant land. The challenge to the order passed by the competent authority is also without substance. No appeal or revision application was filed against it and therefore it had become final and binding on the appellants. After the determination of the excess land, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued and the excess land vested in the State Government under Section 10(3) of the Act. Ten years thereafter, the appellants had filed the Writ Petition challenging the said order. The High Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the Writ Petition summarily. It is also worth noting that even though the sister of the appellants knew about the proceedigs, she had not filed any objection at any stage before the land vested in the State Government. She filed a Writ Petition in 1986 and it was dismissed.
4. As we do not find any substance in this appeal, it is dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***********