Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"42. Act to override other laws :-
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority."

26. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 42 of the ULC Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the transactions which had become final and conclusive long back. Pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority on 05.01.1987, the competent authority has initiated proceedings under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act on 12.03.1987 by issuing a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, inviting objections from the persons interested in the land in question. However, no objections were filed by the appellant pursuant to the said notification. Had the appellant raised any objection, the competent authority would have passed an order under Section 10(2) of the ULC Act and if such an order was invited by the appellant and if the order was against him, he could have filed an appeal against such order under Section 33 of the ULC Act. Since no objections were filed by the appellant pursuant to the Notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, the competent authority was not under obligation to pass any order under Section 10(2) of the Act and, therefore, the competent authority proceeded to issue a notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act on 17.09.1987. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. DAROTHI CLARE PARREIRA AND ORS. v. . STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., AIR 1996 S.C. 2553 wherein it is held that it was open to the competent authority to issue notification under Section 10(3) of the Act. Even at this stage also, the appellant could have filed an appeal before the appellate authority but no such appeal was filed. After the notification was issued under Section 10(3) of the Act, notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was issued on 09.06.1989 for the purpose of taking over the surplus land including the suit land. The said notice was also not challenged and, therefore, the possession was taken under Section 10(6) of the Act on 16.01.1990. Once the possession was taken over by the Govt, whatever status the appellant had qua the said land stood extinguished and the land stood vested in the State Govt. and it was open to the State Govt. to dispose of the said land subject to the relevant provisions of the ULC Act and the manner provided therein. It was not open to the appellant to file the suit before the Civil Court as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the said issue.

32. Mr. Patel has further submitted that by filing the present suit, the appellant was trying to reopen a chapter which was already concluded by competent authority in accordance with law. The appellant could have challenged in appeal the orders passed under the ULC Act but he did not do so and though he has lost possession in the year 1990, he has not done anything upto 2001 and it was only in the year 2001, he filed the present suit which was not maintainable in view of the clear Provisions of Section 42 of the ULC Act. Since the ULC came to be repealed with effect from 30.03.1999 by the Provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 999, all the proceedings arising under the Act stood abated and no such proceedings could have been initiated thereafter. The suit is not maintainable and the question of granting of any interim relief in such a suit does not arise.

48. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has neither challenged the order of Competent Authority passed on 05.01.1987, nor the Notifications issued under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act, issued on 12.03.1987 and 17.09.1987 respectively. The appellant has also not challenged the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, nor challenged the action of the State Government of taking possession of the suit land on 16.01.1990. Mere filing of an application under Section 21(1) of the Act, which fact is also in dispute, or mere raising an objection to the notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act are not sufficient. As soon as Notification under Section 10(3) is issued, the suit land is vested in the State Government and as soon as the possession of the suit land is taken over by the State Government, the appellant has lost all his rights in the suit land, till the said action is declared to be illegal or null and void by the appropriate Court, authority or tribunal. If, on the date when the Repeal Act has come into force, no rights are created or are in existence in favour of the appellant, mere pendency of his application under Section 21 of the ULC Act would not come to his rescue, as all proceedings including proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, are, therefore, abated.

49. The Court now proceeds to deal with the issue raised by Mr. Gandhi with regard to the effect of pendency of an application under Section 21 of the ULC, even if it is presumed that such an application was pending, on the subsequent proceedings under the ULC Act, beyond the stage of Section 10(2) of the said Act. It is, true that earlier this Court has taken the view in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. . KANUBHAI @ NAVINBHAI (S.C.A. No. 9331 of 2000) decided in November, 2003 that an application under Section 20 of the ULC Act seeking exemption was filed and since there was nothing on record showing that the said application was disposed off by the Competent authority, all subsequent actions taken without disposal of the said application cannot be held to be justified in view of the decisions of this Court. However, the Court has not rested its decision on this solitary ground. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the competent authority and order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State Government before this Court, after about two years and that too, after Repeal Act, 1999 has come into force on 30.03.1999, and the matter was still pending before the competent authority. Moreover, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DAROTHI CLARE PARREIPA (SMT.) AND ORS. (SUPRA) was neither cited nor relied upon by the State Government. In the present case, the facts are quite distinguishable. The proceedings under the ULC Act were finalised and the appellant has not challenged the said proceedings. After vesting of the land under Section 10(3) of the Act in the State Government, the possession of the disputed land was already taken over on 16.01.1990 and, thereafter, the Special Civil Suit was filed in 2001 before the Civil Court. In the said background of the matter, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. DAROTHI CLARE PARREIPA AND ORS. (SUPRA) are of much relevance. Considering the scheme of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given categorical finding that it cannot be said that until the application under Section 21 or Section 20 is considered and disposed of, the Competent Authority has no power to have the notification under Section 10(3), vesting the excess land in the Government published. The decision of this Court in the case of RAJESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL v. . STATE OF GUJARAT, 2001 (3) G.L.R. 2520 (Supra) has no application as in that case, the competent authority did not proceed to act in accordance with the order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.1998, and thereafter, the Act was repealed with effect from 30.03.1999. In the present case, the order of the competent authority is not challenged at all. The decision of this Court in the case of RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. . LAVJIBHAI M. PATEL THROUGH HIS P.O.A. HOLDER RAJESH J. JOSHI AND ORS., 2000 (3) G.L.R. 2293 (Supra) has also no application as in that case, admittedly the possession was not taken over by the State Government despite the Notification having been issued under Section 10(3) of the Act. The decision of this Court in the case of AMBALAL PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL v. . STATE OF GUJARAT, 2001(4) G.L.R. 3319 (Supra) has also no application as in that case Scheme was not approved and the matter was remanded to the competent authority and pending decision of the competent authority, the Act was repealed on 30.03.1999. In the present case, order passed by the Competent authority has become final and no proceedings except application under Section 21 are pending before the Competent Authority and after Repeal Act, 1999 and more particularly, when the Notification under Section 10(3) has already been issued vesting the disputed property in the State Government and after issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, possession was taken over by the State Government, neither the State Government or any authority in that behalf be directed to decide application under Section 21 of the Act, nor Notification under Section 10(3) or any subsequent proceedings under the Act, can be held to be illegal, unlawful or null and void.