Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The 1st Petitioner owns lands CTS Nos. 124 and 125 of Village Marol, Taluka Andheri. This is undoubtedly a substantial tract of land, said in the Petition to be nearly 17492.70 sq mtrs, i.e., over four acres altogether. The 2nd Petitioner is a developer.

5. It all began on 15th May 2008 when the Additional Collector and competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 ("the ULC Act") passed an order exempting surplus vacant lands from the application of Chapter III of the ULC Act. This was a conditional order. The competent authority declared that an area of 5387.17 sq mtrs from the total holding was surplus vacant land. This itself requires an explanation and reference may be had to a schedule at page 45 where we find the relevant details. First, there is an area statement in this table relatable to the property card and this shows CTS Nos. 124 and 125 30th March 2023 Salim Alimohomed Porbanderwalla & Anr v The State of Maharashtra & Anr 903-oswp-4849-2022-J.doc as admeasuring 15,669.20 sq mtrs. This is slightly less than the Petitioners claim. Of this, the area in possession of the Petitioners was 12025.25 sq mtrs. Another 1547.80 sq mtrs was under a DP Reservation for a road, and further 2100 sq mtrs was under a reservation for a recreation ground. This left the "net balance land"

8. The ULC Act stood repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. On 29th November 2007, the State Legislature adopted the Repeal Act and it was brought into force in the State of Maharashtra.

9. On 3rd September 2014, a Full Bench of this Court considered the effect of the Repeal Act in Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Anr.2 The majority held that exemptions granted under Section 20 of the ULC Act did not abate on repeal.3

11. At this stage, it may be instructive to take a step back for a quick overview of the trajectory of the land ceiling legislation and the decisions to which we have referred.

12. The ULC Act's stated purposes were two: first, to prevent land speculation and profiteering by a concentration of urban lands in the hands of a few; and, second, to achieve an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomeration for the greater common good.

13. Chapter III of the ULC Act had specific provisions directed towards these objective. Broadly, there were three strategies. (1) the imposing of a 'ceiling' on vacant land in urban agglomerations, (2) acquiring lands exceeding the ceiling, and (3) regulating construction on such land. Chapter III thus -- and logically -- had three sub-parts. Sections 3 through 18 dealt with ceiling limits, determining vacant land and the acquisition of 'surplus' land (land exceeding the ceiling). Sections 19 to 22 dealt with exemptions (and this is important for our purposes today). Sections 23 and 24 dealt with disposal of vacant lands. Section 3 was what we may call the trigger provision. It contained the prohibition -- the heart of the ULC Act. No person could hold vacant land beyond the prescribed ceiling limit in the areas covered by the ULC Act. Ceilings and the 30th March 2023 Salim Alimohomed Porbanderwalla & Anr v The State of Maharashtra & Anr 903-oswp-4849-2022-J.doc method of computing these for different agglomerations were set out in Section 4. We pass over some of the following sections and come to Sections 6 through 9. These set out the operability of the Act. The 'determination' (of ceilings, surplus land, etc) began with a compulsory filing of statements by anyone who held vacant land beyond the ceiling limit as on the date of the ULC Act's commencement. Particulars were to be submitted. The excess vacant land was to be determined under Section 9. A final statement of determination of excess vacant land (and its service) was to be done under Section 9 (Section 8 contained parallel provisions for a draft statement). Section 10 dealt with the acquisition of excess vacant land by the State Government. A notification with particulars was required proposing the acquisition inviting claims, determining these, and then a declaration of the acquisition. On publication of that notification, the land was deemed to vest absolutely in the State Government with effect from the specified date. Between the dates of the notifications, transfers were forbidden. Then there were provisions for the government to take possession of the acquired lands, including a surrender or possession by force. Compensation was the subject of Sections 11 to 14. Section 19 dealt with situations of exemption where Chapter III would not apply to certain vacant lands (such as those held by the State or Central Government, banks, etc). Then came Section 20. This empowered the State Government to exempt any vacant land on specific conditions and also empowered it to withdraw any such exemption for non- compliance. Section 21 set out the circumstances in which some surplus vacant lands would not be treated as such, and Section 22 addressed cases under which land owners could retain the excess vacant land. Sections 23 and 24 had provisions for disposal of vacant 30th March 2023 Salim Alimohomed Porbanderwalla & Anr v The State of Maharashtra & Anr 903-oswp-4849-2022-J.doc lands so acquired by the State Government (i.e., in advancement of the principle of equitable distribution).

35. We are therefore inclined to make Rule absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned communication of 22nd April 2022 and by directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to, within six weeks from today, remove all entries under the ULC Act for the surplus vacant land since the Petitioners have paid the premium for it fully 30th March 2023 Salim Alimohomed Porbanderwalla & Anr v The State of Maharashtra & Anr 903-oswp-4849-2022-J.doc and to treat this land as now free (on payment of that premium as noted above), free of all conditions stipulated by the exemption order of 15th May 2008 under Section 20 of the ULC Act.