http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: NATWARBHAI MAGAINBHAI PATEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Counsel for  the petitioner  admits that a notification under Section  10 [5] of the Urban Ceiling Act was published pursuant to which the excess vacant land was surrendered and taken possession  of by  the Government.   Consequently, the land  stands   vested  in   the  State   free  rom  all  the encumbrances.   In what  manner  the  lands  require  to  be utilised has been regulated under the provisions of the act. It is  not a  condition, under  the  Act,  that  payment  of compensation be made before utilisation of the land of which the  petitioner   was   erswhile   owner.      Under   these circumstances, we  do not  find any  illegality in the order passed by  the High Court in Special Civil Appeal No.4093/93 on May 15, 1995.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.