Anna Patil & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors  INSC 22 (9
S.N.Phukur Nanavati. J.
appear arises out of the order passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay
In Writ Petition No. 994/93.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
what is taken over by the State is the excess vacant land.
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.
do not find any substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. No order as to