- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The prescribed authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 declared 4,314.60 sq m of the appellant’s land as surplus. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged that declaration before the appellate authority and then through a writ petition in the High Court. After the High Court’s dismissal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which ordered maintenance of the status quo regarding possession.
While the appeals were pending, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, and by resolution under Article 252(2) of the Constitution, the State of Uttar Pradesh adopted the Repeal Act with effect from 18-3-1999. The appellant filed a supplementary affidavit dated 31-10-1999 contending that, because possession had not been taken by the State, all pending proceedings ought to abate under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State filed a counter-affidavit but did not dispute the appellant’s claim regarding possession.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of State possession over the declared surplus land, the pending proceedings under the 1976 Act must abate pursuant to Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Asserted through a supplementary affidavit that possession of the land remained with the appellant and had never been taken by the State.
- Invoked Section 4 of the Repeal Act to contend that, because no possession was taken, all proceedings relating to the surplus land must abate.
State's Position
- The counter-affidavit did not address or deny the appellant’s assertion regarding possession of the land.
- No affirmative claim was made that the land had been taken over under Sections 11–14 of the principal Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reproduced Section 4 of the Repeal Act, emphasizing that all pending proceedings “shall abate” unless they concern land of which the State has already taken possession under Sections 11–14 of the principal Act. The record contained no material indicating that the State had taken possession of the surplus land. The appellant’s assertion of continuous possession was uncontested, and a Supreme Court order maintaining status quo regarding possession was already in force.
Given the statutory mandate and the absence of evidence showing State possession, the Court concluded that the proviso to Section 4 did not apply. Consequently, the pending appeals and all related proceedings were required to abate as a matter of law.
Holding and Implications
The proceedings abate under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and the appeals are disposed of.
Direct Consequence: The surplus-land declaration and all challenges thereto cease to have legal effect, leaving the appellant in possession of the land. The decision turns solely on statutory abatement; it sets no broader precedent beyond applying Section 4 to similar factual circumstances.
Order
1. These appeals relate to proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). The prescribed authority had declared an area of 4314.60 sq m of land as surplus. This order was challenged in appeal. But the appellate authority rejected the appeal whereafter a writ petition was filed in the High Court which too was dismissed. It is in these circumstances that these appeals have been filed in this Court which also granted an order of “status quo” in respect of possession of the surplus land.
2. The Act has since been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999). The legislature of the State of U.P has since adopted the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by a resolution as required by Article 252(2) of the Constitution. The repealing Act has since come into force in the State of U.P with effect from 18-3-1999. The appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 31-10-1999 in this Court and on that basis, it has been prayed that the present proceedings be abated. The State has not filed any reply to this affidavit.
3. Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 provides as under:
“4. Abatement of legal proceedings.—All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate;
Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.”
4. In the counter-affidavit not a word has been said about the possession of the surplus land. In fact, it is maintained by the appellant that the possession is still with the appellant who was also granted an interim order regarding “status quo”.
5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the State had taken possession over the surplus land, the present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
6. The appeals are disposed of finally.
Alert