VICTOR ASUDANI KAILASH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Collector, District Bhopal in Case No.324/B-121/07-08 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the Collector, Bhopal took the matter in suo motu and passed the impugned order that because the exemption which was provided to the mother of respondent No.3 in terms of the exemption order dated 21 st March, 1985 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act ) she did not sell the land to the Vidyut Mandal Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bhopal (in short the Housing Society ) on 20.11.2006, therefore, the mutation made in favour of the petitioner has been set aside by the Collector. Hence, this petition has been filed.

(3.) Contention of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the exemption under Section 20 of the Principal Act was provided to the mother of the respondent No.3, namely, Smt. Vimla Devi who has since died. Learned counsel submits that the order of exemption dated 21 st March, 1985 (Annexure P-1) is on record, however, in terms of the exemption order, said Smt. Vimla Devi (mother of the respondent No.3) did not sell the land in question to the Housing Society, but, no action was taken at the relevant point of time when the Principal Act was in force, nor the Cooperative Society took any action against her by filing legal proceedings and hence, because later on the Principal Act has been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short the Repeal Act ) which came into force with effect from 14.3.2000 and according to Section 4 of the Repeal Act, all the proceedings under the Principal Act of 1976 shall stand repealed, therefore, now no action be taken under the Principal Act. Learned counsel submits that later on the mother of the respondent No.3 had also died and thereafter, the respondent No.3 has sold the property in question to the petitioner on 20.11.2006. Thus, in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, no action could be taken by the Collector and hence, the impugned order is bad in law and without jurisdiction.