Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Apart from what is noticed above, it further appears that proceedings were also taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the ULC Act') for declaration of excess vacant land on 26th August, 1991. A final statement under the said Act was issued by the competent authority declaring 6145.90 square meters of land to be excess vacant land. It appears that construction on the land commenced after the sanction of the plans by the municipality. That was also the commencement of the troubles for the respondents and the litigation between the parties.

On the aforesaid facts, the question to be considered is about the legality of the action of the appellants in reopening the preparation of record of rights after lapse of 38 years and particularly the manner in which it was sought to be reopened.

The period of 25 years under the lease expired in the year 1976. The notification under the Act was issued on 11th November, 1954. In 1957 record of rights was prepared under Section 44 of the Act according to which the land was held retainable under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act. The possession was handed over to the original owners in 1981 on liquidation of the lessee on an order being passed by the High Court directing official liquidator to disclaim the property which was later transferred to the writ petitioners in terms of the agreements of sale entered in the year 1988 and sale deeds in 1992-93. Meanwhile, in the year 1991 on proceedings being taken under the ULC Act, 6145.90 square meter of the land was held to be excess under the said Act. In June 1993, the plans were sanctioned and construction commenced. It can, thus, be seen that after the preparation of record-of-rights, not only the appellants did not take any steps and slept over the matter but various steps as above were taken by the respondents in respect of the land in question. The argument that the proceedings under the ULC Act or the preparation of record-of-rights were ultra vires and the acts without jurisdiction and, therefore, those proceedings would not operate as a bar in appellants invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC by virtue of conferment of such power under Section 57A of the Act is wholly misconceived and misplaced. The inherent powers cannot be used to reopen the settled matters. These powers cannot be resorted to when there are specific provisions of the Act to deal with the situation. It would be an abuse to allow the reopening of the settled matter after nearly four decades in the purported exercise of inherent powers. It has not even been suggested that there was any collusion or fraud on behalf of the writ petitioners or the erstwhile owners. There is no explanation much less satisfactory explanation for total inaction on the part of the appellants for all these years.

Apart from the facts stated above, even when the appellants woke from its slumber, the manner in which they acted has already been noticed and it is apparent therefrom that at that stage they did not proceed to take action for the correction of the record-of-rights. They did not at that stage invoke Section 57A of the Act. What they did was to issue an order suspending the sanction of the building plans and directed the Chairman of the Municipality to ask the respondents to suspend the construction according to the plan sanctioned by the Municipality. In proceedings of the writ petition wherein the said order was challenged, it does not appear that appellants took the stand of the land vesting in it and the further stand that the record-of-right was prepared without jurisdiction or that the proceedings under the ULC Act were void and without jurisdiction. The stand taken by them was that proceedings under the ULC Act were not genuine. The competent authority was called in those proceedings and stood by the documents signed by him. The statement issued under the ULC Act were held to be genuine. The order directing suspension of the plans and stoppage of construction were quashed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The order of the learned single Judge was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. After the decision of the Division Bench, the appellants started proceedings in question under Section 57A purporting to Act on the basis that 1957 record-of-rights was based on defective, wrongful and irregular record and it was not a bar for revision of records on the basis of new and genuine facts. The notice issued even within less than three weeks of the decision of the Division Bench itself shows that the appellants were aware of the proceedings of the writ petition but did not think it proper to move the High Court and seek a clarification that they could reopen the matter explaining to the High Court the circumstances under which in response to the writ petition they had not taken the stand before the High Court on the basis whereof they were seeking to exercise power under Section 57A after lapse of nearly 38 years. It is evident that they knew about the factum of liquidation of the lessee. Despite that, notice of proceedings under Section 57A was directed to be issued to the Mill and not to the writ petitioners on whose petition the order of the District Magistrate was set aside by the High Court. Two months later, i.e., on 15th May, 1995, the order was passed noticing that nobody had appeared to oppose those proceedings. The appellants purported to take paper possession on 5th September, 1996. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any attempt was made to serve the notice dated 15th March, 1995 or the order dated 15th May, 1995 on the respondents who, it seems, came to know of these proceedings only towards the end of 1996 when proceedings were initiated for breach of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is difficult to comprehend, the applicability of Section 144 Cr.P.C. to the fact situation. To say the least, the appellants have been wholly negligent and having slept over the matter for nearly 40 years, they could not reopen the matter in the manner sought to be done.

Further, it deserves to be noticed that if land had vested in the State under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act on issue of notification in the year 1954 as sought to be contended, the ULC Act, will have no applicability as Section 19 of the ULC Act, inter alia, provides that Chapter II of the Act, subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 19 shall not apply to any vacant land held by any State Government. In the earlier writ petition filed by the respondents, the stand taken by the appellants was not that the proceedings under the ULC Act were ultra vires and without jurisdiction on the ground that the land vested in the State under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and in view of Section 19, the ULC Act was not applicable. Their stand was that the proceedings under the ULC Act were not genuine and were fraudulent and had been fabricated. That stand was rejected. Despite the decision of the High Court, the appellants seek to abrogate to themselves the decision making power that the earlier proceedings were without jurisdiction. It is interesting and rather surprising to note that in the notice dated 15th March, 1995 and the order dated 15th May, 1995, namely, the proceedings that followed immediately after the decision of the High Court and that too without any notice to the concerned parties it is not even stated that the earlier proceedings were without jurisdiction. In this state of affairs, it is evident that actions of the appellants are far from bona fide. It was an attempt to even overreach the Court. The High Court, therefore, was right in allowing the writ petition.