Jharkhand High Court
Savitri Devi & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 9 February, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 (2) AIR JHAR R 711
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2160 of 2004
Savitri Devi & Ors. ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
For the Petitioners : M/s V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate, Debolina Sen,
Birendra Kumar, Neeraj Kishore, Advocates
For the RespondentState : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G.
For Respondent No. 6 : M/s Niranjan Singh, Om Prakash Singh, Advocates
-----
14/09.02.2012When this writ petition is taken up, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The said Repeal Act of 1999 has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand with effect from 24.01.2011 by a Resolution dated 24.01.2011. As a consequence, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act in U.L.C. Case Nos. 374 of 1976/ 247 of 1979/ 176 of 1983 stand abated and no further order remains to be challenged in the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 clearly provides for abatement of legal proceedings with the exception that the said provision shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12 13 and 14 of the Principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person authorised by the State Government.
Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, possession of the alleged surplus land has not been taken over by the State. The proceeding was at the stage of publication of notification under Section 9 and there was no publication of notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3). In view of the above, as on this date, there is no surviving provision of the Urban Land Ceiling Act to be enforced against the petitioner and all the initial proceedings stand abrogated.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the said contentions and submitted that the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be said to be abated in view of the fact that in the instant case there was notification under Section 10(1) of the Act. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order in appeal No. 25 of 1996 before the Divisional Commissioner. The same was ultimately dismissed. The proceeding in the instant case, thus, arrived at the conclusive stage holding the petitioner's land as surplus and as such, the proceeding against the petitioner does not come under the ambit of Section 4 of the repealing Act. Learned counsel, however, admitted that Government of Jharkhand has taken resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution of India adopting the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is admitted position that the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed by enacting Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which is a central legislation. Government of Jharkhand adopted the said Act under Article 252 of the Constitution of India by a resolution dated 24.01.2011. Section 4 of the said Act provides for abatement of legal proceedings, which reads as follows : " S. 4. Abatement of legal proceedings. All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate;
Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority."
It is clear from the bare reading of Section 4 that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate. Exception to the said provision is the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.
In the instant case, admittedly, there was no publication of notification under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, for taking over possession of the surplus land, meaning thereby that there was no proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of principal Act, as the proceeding of the instant case has not reached that stage. In my view, therefore, the instant proceeding does not come within the said exception excluding the application of effect of Section 4 i.e. excluding from the effect of abatement.
In view of the above discussion, it is held that by operation of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, all the proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act in U.L.C. Case Nos. 374 of 1976/ 247 of 1979/ 176 of 1983 stood abated.
This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the said observations.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Manish/