LAXMIBAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the State Government in proceedings under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act , 1976 (for short, 'the said Act'). By the said order, the State Government was pleased to maintain the order dated 03.06.1989 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the said Act. It was also declared that the transfer of excess land admeasuring about 9000 square meters in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 7 was illegal. The Competent Authority was permitted to charge current market rates for regularizing the said transaction in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 7. Thereafter by amending the writ petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the proceedings under the said Act now stand abated in view of provisions of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Repeal Act '). The petitioners also seek further relief that the transferred land be directed to be returned back to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that on 16.08.1983 the original owner of the land in question Shri Anandrao Bante filed a return under Section 8 of the said Act. He stated that he was the owner of Survey No.130 admeasuring 22500 square meters. He did not apply for any exemption under Section 20 of the said Act. The Competent Authority on 03.06.1989 passed an order under Section 8(4) of the said Act and noted that after the appointed date, the land owner had in contravention of the provisions of Section 5(3) of the said Act sold 1 Hectare 80 R land in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 7 on 12.11.1982. It was therefore held that such transfer was illegal. As the owner was found holding 22500 square meters of vacant land it was held that he was entitled to retain 1500 square meters of land. Accordingly, after declaring 21000 square meters of land as surplus land that was liable to be surrendered by the original owner it was held that he was entitled to retain 1500 square meters of land.

(3.) The respondent nos.4 to 7 filed proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act before the State Government. On 24.08.2004, the said proceedings were decided and the sale transactions in favour of the respondent nos.4 to 7 was regularized by imposing conditions. The legal heirs of the original owner challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No.5246 of 2004. By the judgment dated 28.09.2005 this Court set aside the order dated 24.08.2004 on the ground that the legal heirs of the original owner had not been impleaded in the said proceedings. The State Government was directed to re-consider the proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act while permitting the legal heirs of the original owner to raise an objection therein. The State Government thereafter on hearing all the parties passed the impugned order dated 10.01.2006 as stated hereinabove. The legal heirs of the original owner being aggrieved by that order and especially the direction to regularize the sale transactions have challenged the said order by filing the present writ petition.