Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3) out of the properties set out in clause (b) paragraph 3 were sold by his grandfather Jayaji Kate. The petitioner is relying upon genealogy of his family at the time of coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1996 (for short "the ULC Act").

3. According to the case made out in the petition, statements/returns under Sub-Section 1 of Section 6 of the ULC Act were filed. On 15th April, 1981, on the basis of the statements submitted under Sub-Section 1 of Section 6 of the ULC Act, the Competent Authority passed a common order under Sub-Section 4 of the Section 8 of the ULC Act. By the order dated 15th April, 1981, four members of the family of the petitioner who filed returns were held entitled to retain a total area 4000 square meters of vacant land (1000 square meters each) out of their total land holding. An area of 37,569.06 square meters was declared as the land held in excess of ceiling limits. According to the case of the petitioner, under the development plan sanctioned under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, certain areas out of the holding of the petitioner's family were shown under reservation.

4. In the petition, it is pointed out that on 27th December, 1989 the Competent Authority published a declaration under Sub-Section 1 of Section 10 of the ULC Act. There were two appeals preferred by the family members of the petitioner 3 wp5106 challenging the order under Sub-Section 4 of Section 8 of the ULC Act. Both the appeals were dismissed on the point of limitation. The orders passed on appeals have been confirmed in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner's father. The case made out in the petition is that though a notification under Sub-Section 3 of Section 10 of the ULC Act dated 18th June, 1991 was published and though on 23rd October, 1991 a notice under Sub-Section 5 of Section 10 of the ULC Act was issued, no notice under Sub-Section 6 of Section 10 of the ULC Act was issued to the petitioner's family. The purported possession panchnama has been recorded by the Competent Authority, in absence of the petitioner and his family members under which the possession of the excess vacant land of 34069 square meters bearing survey No.11/1 was purportedly taken over and was allotted to the fifth respondent - the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.

5. The main contention in the writ petition is that after the Act repealing the ULC Act came into force on 29th November, 2007 in the State of Maharashtra, the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act stood lapsed or abated as the possession of the vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit was never taken over in accordance with Sub-Section (5) read with Sub-Section (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act.

6. It is contended in the petition that the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the 2nd 4 wp5106 respondent for acquiring an area of 1106 square meters out of Survey No.11/1 and an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 26th March, 2008. It is pointed out that though vacant land in excess of ceiling limit was purportedly allotted to the fifth Respondent, the legal possession thereof has not been handed over to the said Respondent. In fact, the contention is that possession of the excess land has not been taken over in terms of Sub-Sections 5 and 6 of Section 10 of the ULC Act.

8. This petition is opposed by the various respondents by filing reply. Firstly, we must point out the stand taken by the State Government. There is an affidavit in reply filed on 20th July, 2010 by Shri Bhanudas P. Gaikwad, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune. In the said affidavit of Shri Gaikwad, it was contended that a notification under Sub-Section 3 of Section 10 of the ULC Act was issued on 18th June, 1991 for the land 5 wp5106 bearing Survey No.11/1 (part) admeasuring 34069 square meters (the said land). But the lands bearing Survey Nos.25/30 and 17/8 were not included. The said notification under Sub-Section 3 of Section 10 was published on 4th July, 1991. Reliance is placed on a notice issued under Sub-Section 5 of Section 10 on 23rd October,1991 calling upon the petitioner to give possession of the excess vacant land. It is pointed out that by the order dated 2nd December, 1991 the excess vacant land admeasuring 34069 square meters (the said land) was allotted to the fifth respondent. The said officer has pointed out that one Ramchandra Jayaji Kate, Uncle of the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.1402 of 1992 before this Court. The said writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafter the said Ramchandra Jayaji Kate, the petitioner herein and another filed one more writ petition which was rejected. It is pointed out that the present petitioner suppressed the important fact that his father Kisan Jayaji Kate,and he himself along with others filed a revision under Section 34 of the ULC Act against the order dated 15th April, 1981 and that the said revision application came to be dismissed. The petitioner's father filed a Writ Petition in this Court for challenging the decision of the State Government under Section 34 of the ULC Act which petition also came to be dismissed by the order dated 14th June, 2004. The copies of the notices issued under the ULC Act have been annexed to the affidavit in reply.