http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHIVGONDA ANNA PATIL AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/02/1999

BENCH: G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukur

JUDGMENT:

Nanavati.  J.

     This appear arises out of the order passed by the High Court  of judicature at Bombay In Writ Petition No.  994/93. The   appellants  had  challenged   the  order  dated   20th September, 1979 passed by the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority,   Urban  Land  Ceiling,   Sangli  and  also   the constitutional  validity of certain provisions of the  Urban Land  (Ceiling  and Regulation) Act on the ground that  they are  violative of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution.   The High Court summarily dismissed the Writ Petition.

     The  appellants’  case in the Writ Petition  was  that their  father  died in the year 1965 and on his death,  land bearing Survey No.  228/3 was

     inherited  by them.  It was mutated in the name of the eldest son on 25.2.56.On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the appellant No.l filed a   statement  under  Section  5  of  the  Act  on   4.9.76. Thereafter,  on  20.9.79, the Competent  Authority  declared 6,100  sq.m.  as vacant and excess land.  A Notification  to that  effect  and vesting of it in Government under  Section 10(3)  was issued on 5.5.83.  Notice under Section 10(5) for taking  possession of the excess land was issued on 31.3.85. The  appellant  No.l on coming to know of it approached  the Deputy  Collector and the competent authority with a request to  re-open  the  proceedings  on   the  ground  that  while determining  excess  ^and, the competent authority  had  not taken  into  consideration share of his sister in the  joint family property.  The competent authority refused to re-open the  case and therefore the appellants were required to file Writ Petition.

     The  challenge  to the constitutional validity of  the relevant   provisions  of  the   Urban  Land  (Ceiling   and Regulation)  Act  has  to be rejected as  Its  validity  has already  been upheld by this court.  (See Maharao Saheb Shri Bhim  Singhji etc.  vs.  UOI and ors :  AIR 1981 SC 234  and AIR  1985 SC 1G50 ).  Moreover, the contention raised by the appellants  that as no provision has been made in the  Urban Land  (Ceiling  and  Regulation) Act  regarding  payment  of compensation  at market rate for acquisition of agricultural land,  it  is  violative of the second  proviso  to  Article 31-A(1)  of the Constitution, is thoroughly misconceived  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

what  is taken over by the State is the excess vacant  land. The challenge to the order passed by the competent authority 1s   also   without  substance.   No  appeal   or   revision application was filed against it and therefore it had become final   and   binding   on   the  appellants.    After   the determination  of  the  excess land,  a  notification  under Section  10(1)  of  the Act was issued and the  excess  land vested  in  the State Government under Section 10(3) of  the Act.   Ten  years thereafter, the appellants had  filed  the Writ  Petition  challenging the said order.  The High  Court was,  therefore,  justified in dismissing the Writ  Petition summarily.  It 1s

     also  worth noting that even though the sister of  the appellants knew about the proceedings, she had not filed any objection  at any stage before the land vested in the  State Government.   She  filed a Writ Petition in 1986 and it  was dismissed.

     As  we do not find any substance in this appeal, it is dismissed.

     No order as to costs.