VOLTASH LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLESTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the first petitioner is a company incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and now governed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 company.

(2.) The first petitioner is the owner of lands situated at Village Panchpakhadai, at Thane and Village Majiwade at Thane. On the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act"), pursuant to the first petitioner s return dated 14th August, 1976 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 28th September, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring a large area as surplus vacant land. The first petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Additional Collector, Thane, who by his order dated 29th April, 1985 stayed the operation of the order dated 28th September, 1984 and eventually by order dated 19th February, 1990 remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority for fresh adjudication.

(3.) The Competent Authority issued Corrigendums dated 2nd December, 2002 and dated 2nd January, 2003 to the said order dated 28th September, 1984. Thereafter, a final Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003 came to be issued under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, whereby 77,630.63 square meters was declared as surplus vacant land under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. This was confirmed in the final statement of the Competent Authority dated 17th June, 2003 under Section 9 of the ULC Act. The first petitioner pointed out the discrepancies in the area of the land described as surplus vacant land in the Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003 and also objected to the same, inter alia, on the ground that most of the land was already utilized for factory (pursuant to 1976 and 1980 Exemption Orders from the Director of Industries under Section 20 of the Act), a part was encroached upon, some lands had been sanctioned for extension of H.R.D. Centre, etc. Therefore, the same could not be declared as surplus vacant land. On 17th June, 2003 the Competent Authority issued a Notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act. Thereafter the Competent Authority issued a Notification dated 3rd February, 2004 under Sections 10(3) of the ULC Act stating that the surplus vacant land is deemed to be acquired. On 24th August, 2004 the first petitioner submitted a scheme under Section 20 of the ULC Act for land admeasuring 22,885 square metres at Village Panchpakhadi. An earlier scheme submitted under Section 20 had not been decided upon. On 8th November, 2004 notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act came to be issued, whereby the first petitioner was called upon to hand over possession of the aforesaid land stated to be surplus vacant land admeasuring 77,630.63 square meters under the Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003. The first petitioner made several representations seeking withdrawal of the Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) notifications, setting out inter alia that the aforesaid scheme under Section 20 had been submitted and was pending and the reasons why the aforesaid land could not be declared surplus vacant land. The petitioners also represented that an exemption Order dated 10th March, 1980 had been issued by the Directorate of Industries. The first petitioner further submitted that there were plans sanctioned to construct a H.R.D. Centre and Staff quarters, etc., due to which, the aforesaid land was not surplus vacant land. In response to the aforesaid representations by the first petitioner, the Competent Authority by its letter dated 28th April, 2005 informed the first petitioner that only the State Government could withdraw the Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) Notification and that its remedy was to file a Revision Application under Section 34 of the ULC Act. The said Revision Application was filed by the first petitioner on 25th May, 2005. On 25th October, 2005 the Revisional Authority directed that as the matter was pending hearing, no further action should be taken in the matter. By Notice dated 8th November, 2005 the first petitioner was given notice of hearing before the Revisional Authority on 11th November, 2005. Hearing took place on 11th November, 2005, when the first petitioner filed its written submissions. The Revisional Authority passed an oral order, remanding the entire matter to the Competent Authority. As no written order was passed in accordance with the oral order, the first petitioner addressed a letter dated 3rd February, 2006 recording that no written order was passed. By a further letter dated 24th August, 2006 the first petitioner placed on record that no written order of remand had been issued. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 6190 of 2006, which came to be disposed of by an Order dated 11th October, 2006, recording the statement of the repondents that the said Revision Application would be disposed of within a period of three weeks and that in case an Order against the first petitioner was made, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of three weeks thereafter. The Revisional Authority by its order dated 30th October, 2006 remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority in regard to in claim of S. No. 68 in as part of surplus vacant land and confirmed the Section 10(3) and 10(5) notification. It also directed that the scheme submitted by the first petitioner under Section 20 of the ULC Act be considered on merits. The Revisional Authority by the aforesaid Order dated 30th October, 2006 upheld the notices of the Competent Authority under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act. The first petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order dated 30th October, 2006 passed by the Revisional Authority filed the present Writ Petition No. 8356 of 2006 challenging the same. This Court by its Order dated 19th December, 2006 granted interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c) and issued Notice to the repondents. Prayer (c) of the writ petition inter alia, seeks an injunction restraining the repondents from taking any further steps in pursuance of the aforesaid Order dated 30th October, 2006. The petition was amended pursuant to order dated 18.1.2008 consequent upon the repeal of the ULC Act by the Repeal Act, 1999 which was adopted by both Houses of the Maharashtra Legislature on 29-11-2007 as notified on 1.12.2007.