STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHMAD SALIM USMANGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated 21/03/1994 rendered by the learned Single Judge, in Special Civil Application No. 2240/86 setting aside order dated 22/08/1983 passed by the Competent Authority at Vadodara as affirmed in appeal by order dated 31/01/1986 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad, by which permission granted to the respondent under section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was cancelled.

(2.) The respondent is owner of land bearing Survey No. 21/2 admeasuring 2125 sq.mts. situated in the sim of village Danteshwar, District & Sub-District : Vadodara. The respondent had made an application seeking permission under section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 ("Act" for short). The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, ULC, Vadodara had granted necessary permission by order dated 21/06/1980. The respondent could not commence construction work within one year from the date of order of granting permission under section 21(1) of the Act. Therefore, after issuing show-cause notice, the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, ULC, Vadodara cancelled the permission by order dated 22/08/1983. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under section 33 of the Act. That appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 31/01/1986. The two orders referred to above were challenged by the respondent by filing Special Civil Application No. 2240/86 before the High Court. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 21/03/1984 had set aside those orders,giving rise to present appeal.

(3.) It may be mentioned that the Parliament has enacted The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by which Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is repealed. Section 4 of the Repealing Act provides that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate. The proviso to the said section specifies that section 4 shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. The record does not indicate that after cancellation of permission which was granted to the respondent under section 21(1) of the repealed Act, possession of the land in question was taken over either by the State Government or by any other authority. As mentioned earlier, order cancelling permission granted to the respondent under section 21(2) of the repealed Act as well as order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad in appeal are set aside by the learned Single Judge. The order sheet does not indicate that the appellants had obtained any stay of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment while filing Letters Patent Appeal. Under the circumstances, it will have to be held that the Letters Patent Appeal has abeted. As Letters Patent Appeal has abated, the same deserves to be disposed of accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Letters Patent Appeal is abated. We make it clear that we have not pronounced upon legality or otherwise of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in the appeal. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as having abated, with no order as to costs.