BHARAT LAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are assailing the order (P-2), dated 11-6-87 and order (P-3), dated 13-8-87 passed by the competent authority acting under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

(2.) PETITIONERS have made the further prayer that the proceedings before the competent authority be ordered to have abated in view of the provision contained in Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Repeal Act, 1999. Prayer is also made to direct decision of the application dated 28-4-2000 (P-4) by the competent authority.

(3.) WRIT petition has been filed on the averment that land has been wrongly declared as surplus and the decision is in contravention to the dictum of the Apex Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U. P. , (1993) 2 SCC 546. Petitioners further submit that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 has been repealed, no notice under Section 10 (5) of the Repealed act, 1976 has been served and possession has not been taken away of the surplus land. No proceedings under Sections 11,12,13 and 14 of the Repealed act, 1976 were initiated or pending on the date of adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999. As the orders are void, hence, invalidity can be set up at any time, hence the delay in filing the petition, if any, be ignored. Proceedings under Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act were initiated in the year 1980 declaring certain land as surplus which order was subjected to appeal, the matter was remitted back by the Commissioner to the Competent Authority for decision afresh, thereafter order (P-2) has been passed by the Competent Authority on 11-6-1987 and ordered to issue the final statement under Section 9. Petitioner claims that land was exempted from operation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act as per the decision of Atia Mohammadi (supra), proceedings are void ab initio as petitioners' possession has not been disturbed, proceedings stand abated by virtue of Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Repeal Act.