Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

65. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri J.R. Nanavati representing Bhavnagar University in opposing the petition of the land owners and their prayer for dereservation of the land under the Town Planning Act advanced somewhat intricate arguments based on the provisions of ULC Act.

66. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the Bhavnagar University, it would be necessary to state a few additional facts and examine the relevant provisions of the ULC Act. As has already been stated above, the petitioners Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited purchased the land on 30-3-1971 which are admittedly within Bhavnagar Municipality, (now a Corporation). The ULC Act came into force on 17-2-1976 and admittedly, the petitioners held land in excess of the ceiling limit under the said Act. Section 21 of the ULC Act of 1976 contains provisions showing circumstances in which `excess vacant land' may be treated as not `excess'. The land which is proposed sought to be utilised for building houses/flats for the weaker sections of the society under a scheme to be approved by the prescribed authority of the State Government and sanctioned by the competent authority may be treated to be not in excess. Such scheme for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society should have been approved and sanctioned on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed including condition as to the time limit within which such buildings are to be constructed. Under subsection (2) of Section 21, if the conditions prescribed under a scheme approved and sanctioned by the State Government for construction of dwelling units for weaker sections of the society is contravened, the competent authority has been empowered, after granting of opportunity of hearing to the affected party, to declare such land to be `excess land' and there upon the relevant provisions of the ULC Act would apply to such land. In accordance with Section 21 of the ULC Act, the petitioners submitted a scheme for construction of houses for weaker sections of the society in respect of various plots purchased by them. The scheme submitted by the petitioners was sanctioned by the State Government on 17-1-1979, for certain parcels of land excluding the land proposed to be reserved for Bhavnagar University which came to be so reserved only on 8-11-1985 with effect from 1-1-1986.

73. The legislative development to be taken note of and which according to us is of utmost importance is that ULC Act has been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short the Repeal Act) which was brought into force in the State of Gujarat on 30-3-1999.

74. It is on the above stated additional facts and the legal provisions of ULC Act, it is argued on behalf of the University, that the facts and events show a deep-rooted conspiracy and collusion between the land owners and the authorities of the State Government to deprive the University of the land reserved for it. It is submitted that so far as the `excess' vacant land is concerned the provisions of ULC Act had an overriding effect over the provisions of the Town Planning Act. The State Government acted in the interest of the land owners by first approving a housing scheme for weaker sections but in not taking action against the land owners in spite of the breaches of conditions of the scheme committed by them. It is submitted that attempts were made to dereserve the land in the proposed revised development plan solely with a purpose to indirectly confer benefit on the land owners. It is pointed out that but for the illegal grant of approval and sanction granted to the housing scheme proposed by the petitioners under Section 21 of the ULC Act and subsequently exempting the land for the Housing Board under Section 20 of the said Act, the land owners would have been entitled to only a fixed compensation not exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(4) of the ULC Act of 1976. By not taking action either under Section 21 for contravention of the conditions of the approved scheme or under Section 20 of the ULC Act for declaring the land excess and deeming it to have vested in the State on payment of compensation in a fixed sum under Section 11(6) of the ULC Act, the land was allowed to remain in possession of the petitioners with malafide purpose to protect the statutory right of the petitioners under Section 20 of the Town Planning Act of serving six months notice for dereservation of the land. It is submitted that the land which could have been easily acquired as an excess land by paying a fixed compensation under Section 11(6) of the ULC Act has been made available to the land owners by giving them right to compel the competent authority under Section 20 of the Town Planning Act to acquire the land within six months notice period on payment of its market value in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act instead of paying a fixed compensation under Section 11 of the ULC Act. On behalf of the University it is argued that the present legal situation has been created as a result of deep rooted conspiracy and collusion between the authorities of the State and the land owners. It is submitted that for the above reason this Court should decline to grant any relief to the land owners under Article 226 of the Constitution as its grant is discretionary and can be refused to a party who is guilty not only of committing breaches of the terms and conditions of the approved scheme under the ULC Act, but, as the facts and events demonstrate, is also found to have acted in collusion with the authorities of the State Government.

77. The argument advanced on behalf of the University based on the provisions of ULC Act seem some what perplexing. We however find that the entire edifice of the argument is founded on quick sand. The ULC Act of 1976 came into force on 17-2-1976 and contains provisions in Section 42 of the said Act giving overriding effect to the ULC Act over other laws inconsistent therewith.

78. The Town Planning Act of 1976 came into force with effect from 1-2-1978. We however do not find any inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts. ULC Act has a different object and operates in a totally different field. It is aimed at taking possession of `excess land' beyond ceiling limit for its use in urban areas for fulfilling the needs of the poor and the homeless. The land owners whose land gets vested under ULC Act in the State are entitled to compensation at a prescribed rate and within prescribed limit under Section 11 of the ULC Act. The land so vested and for which compensation is payable under ULC Act can be kept under rereservation under the Town Planning Act. The Town Planning Act aims at regulating and controlling use of land for systematic development of towns and cities. The lands which already stand vested in the State and for which compensation is payable under Section 11 of the ULC Act are not required to be acquired under Section 20 of the Town Planning Act on payment of compensation in accordance with Land Acquisition Act. Prima facie there is no inconsistency between Section 11 of ULC Act and Section 20 of the Town Planning Act, which operate under two different enactments and in two different fields for achieving two different objectives. There is no question of applying the doctrine of eclipse as was advanced in the course of argument by the learned counsel appearing for the university. The doctrine of eclipse is applied to pre-constitutional laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution. The said doctrine can have no application here because ULC Act has overriding effect over other laws in the matter of imposition of ceiling limit and acquisition of excess land.

79. In our considered opinion, the entire argument is totally academic after the repeal of the ULC Act of 1976 by ULC Repeal Act of 1999 which for State of Gujarat is brought into force with effect from 30-3-1999.

80. It is necessary now to examine the effect of the Repealing Act of 1999 on the Town Planning Act in order to find out whether the contentions advanced on the basis of Repealed Act have any force. It has already been stated in the facts mentioned above that the land owned by Palitana Sugar Mills was not declared as excess land in accordance with Section 21 on the basis of housing scheme approved by the State Government and sanctioned by the competent authority for weaker sections of the society. The lands were also exempted by the State Government for utilisation of land for public purpose under Section 20 of the ULC Act. The provisions of Section 20(a) and Section 20(1) of the ULC Act expressly provide that land which is allowed to be retained by the land owner for implementation of scheme for weaker sections of the society under Section 21 or the land which has been exempted under Section 20 of the said Act, would not be deemed to be `excess land' and hence would not vest in the State Government and other provisions of Chapter III of ULC Act of 1976 would have no application to such exempted excess land or land to be utilised under the scheme for weaker sections.