LAWS(KAR)-2006-12-4

ABAY JOSEPH Vs. TAHASILDAR ULC MANGLORE

Decided On December 15, 2006
ABAY JOSEPH Appellant
V/S
TAHASILDAR (ULC), MANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition by a person who claims interest in urban land measuring an extent of 37 cents in Sy. No. 98-2/c of Alape village, Mangalore Taluk though under a registered sale deed dated 13-2-2004 executed by the erstwhile owner of this land namely, one Mrs. Alice D'souza and Mrs. Grancis lobo, who has questioned the legality of an endorsement dated 23-8-2004 issued by deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, mangalore (copy at Annexure-J) declining the request of the petitioner for dropping further proceedings in respect of the land for not disturbing the possession of the petitioner and also for release of the property from acquisition proceedings and in the event of the acquisition notification having been issued, to re-notify the same in terms of his representation dated 31-7-2004 (copy at Annexure-H ).

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner having declined such request, inter alia, indicating that in respect of the land in question, its erstwhile owner Alice D'souza had filed a declaration of excess holding in terms of the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'); that in respect of such a declaration, an extent of 0. 37 acres of land had been determined to be in excess of the permitted limit as per the order dated 29-2-1984 under Section 10 (2) of the Act and the further Notification dated 23-9-1985 a declaration under Section 10 (3) of the Act published in the Gazette dated 10-10-1985, all steps are taken under the Act; that pursuant to the order of determination of excess land, in terms of the order dated 13-1-1993, the possession of the land had been taken over under the provisions of Section10 (6)of the Act and as the provisions of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Repeal Act, 1999 (for short 'repealing Act')are not applicable and the proceedings do not abate, the question of dropping the proceedings does not arise.

(3.) IT is aggrieved by this endorsement, the present writ petition.