MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SAURABH JAIN AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 443

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SAURABH JAIN AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

)- MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( v. SAURABH JAIN AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] . ,. • Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: s. 34andproviso-Revision-Reasonable time limitforfiling of- Land declared as surplus-Possession taken-After about 20 years State Government, on a revision petition, holding land not covered under the Act and directing to release it-Meanwhile land developed as residential colony and houses andflats constructed thereon- HELD: For exercising revisionalpower, Government has to examine . ;>-- why applicant has not availed remedy offiling the appeal-It is also necessary to examine whether after a long lapse oftime any action is warranted-Besides, the proviso to s. 34 mandates grant ofreasonable opportunity ofbeing heard to any person who is likely to be affected by the order-Naturaljustice. UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973: ss.

17 and 34-Restoration ofland on payment ofdevelopment -~ charges etc. -On land declared as surplus under 1976 Act, houses and flats for a residential colony constructedthereon-Jn revision after 20 years Government holding land not covered by 1976 Act-Some portion ofland directed to be returned to land owners on payment of development charges etc. -HELD: Development charges and construction charges are statutorily imposable under the Act-ss. 17 . ,. and 34 ofthe Act are not dependent on the proceedings under 1976 Act-On land-owners agreeing to pay development and other charges aspayable in law, direction given to release the unutilizedvacant land as specified in the judgment-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-s. 34. Land admeasuring 8116. 89 sq. mf:rs.. belonging to the respondents was declared surplus under the Urba111 Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1976 in theyear1977. But, by orderdated 9. 7.

1998,passed by the State Government in a revision peftition, the land was held to be agricultural land and beyond the pun·iew ofthe 1976 Act, and, as such, was directed to be released. Howt! ver, meanwhile the land was developed as a residential colony and flats and houses constructed thereon were allotted to various alllottees. On the application for restitution by the respondents, the Gl{)vernment agreed to return 3605 sq. mtrs. ofland subject to payment ofdevelopment charges and cost of construction. The High Court, in the writ petition filed by the respondents, held that the demand for developmentcharges was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, and direded the State Government and the appellant to return to the respondents 4511 sq. mtrs. ofland in thevicinity of the land in dispute or to pay compensation at full market value. Aggrieved, the Development Authority filed the instant appeal. Disposing ofthe appeal, the Court HELD:l. 1.

The High Courtfailed to notice that after20years from the date when the declaration ofsurplus land was made, the petition underSection 34 ofthe Urban Land (Ceilingand Regulation) Act, 1976 was filed without explaining as to what was the cause for inaction for two decades. For the exercise ofre'visional power it is open to the State >.. Government to examine a petition and on the basis ofmaterial indicated therein to decide whether any action in terms ofSection 34 is called for. Ifthe State Government decides to act on the basis ofpetition filed by any person, it has to examine as to why the person has not availed the remedy offtling an appeal. Itis also necessary to examine whetherafter a long lapse oftime any action is warranted. In this exercise, filing of petition within a reasonable time is inbuilt. Besides, the petition for revision u/s 34 of the Act filed by the respo~dents was disposed of without notict> to the appellant.

Though the appellant had the title over the land, the name ofthe appelfantwas not included in the plaint as a / MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY v. . 445 SAURABH JAIN party. Thus the appellantwas notheard by the revisional authority. The proviso to Section34 mandates grantofreasonable opportunity ofbeing heard to any person who is likely to be affected by the order. [Paras 9, 16, 19 and 20] (448-D, E; 450-C-D; 449-E; 450-E] Pune Municipal Corporation v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. , (2007] 5 sec 211, relied on. 1. 2. The development charges and construction charges are > statutorily imposable underthe U. P. Urban Planningand Development Act, 1973. At the request ofthe respondents 1-3,the State Government did not take steps for acquiring the land. There was a clear agreement to pay the development charges and other charges on the condition that there was no need for acquiring the land.

Sections 17 and 34 of the Development Act are not dependant on the proceedings under the CeilingAct TheHigh Courtwas notjustifiedinignoringthisvitalaspect It is clear that the High Court has not really considered the true import of the concession made for payment of development charges. There was no illegal use and, therefore, the question of any compensation payable as directed by the High Court does not arise. [Paras 11, 12 and 15] [448-G; 449-A, B, D, E] 1. 3. The impugned conclusions of the High Court are not sustainable. Normally, the Court would have set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the same afresh. Butsince respondents 1-3 agree that3570sq. mtrs. ofland may be returned to them on payment of development charges and other charges, as payable in law, the appeal is disposed ofwith the following directions: (l)The appellant authority shall release3570 sq. mtrs.

ofunutilized vacant land on payment of development charges and other charges payable under the Development Act. (2)Respondents 1-3 shall not be entitled for any land beyond 3570 sq. mfrs relatable to the present dispute. [Paras21 and22] (450-F,G; 451-A-B] \ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4329 of 2003. . From the Judgment and Order dated 12. 5. 2003 ofthe High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C. M. W. P. No. 30433/2002. WITH Contempt Petition (C) No. 239/2005. I \. Sharan Amarendera, M. P. Shorawala, Vipin K. Saxena, Jyoti - conclusions. 15. It is clear that the High Court has not really considered the true import ofthe concession made for payment ofdevelopment charges. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant there was no illegal use and, therefore, the question ofany compensation payable as directed by the High Court does not arise. 16. Undisputedly also the revision before the State Government was made nearly after two decades.

In the instant case the appellant was not heard by the revisional authority. 17. Section 33 ofthe Act relates to an appeal by a person aggrieved by any order made by the competent authority under the Act not being an order under Section 11 or an order under sub-section (1) of Section 30. The appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the 0 order is communicated to him. Under the proviso to Section 33 the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of 30 days ifit is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Every order passed by the Appellate Authority under the statute is final. \ 18. Section 34 deals with revision by the State Government.

Under the said provision, the State Government may on its own motion call for and examine the record ofany order passed or proceeding taken under the provisions ofthe Act and against which no appeal has been preferred under Section 12 or Section 30 or Section 33 for the purpose ofsatisfying himselfas to the legality or propriety ofsuch order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pas such order as it may deem fit. 19. As a bare reading of the provision shows that it relates to suo -( . yr motu action on the part ofthe State Government. In that sense, a person aggrieved who had a remedy ofappeal under Section 33 has no statutory right to move in revision. How€::ver, for the exercise ofrevisional power by the State Government it is open to the State Government to examine a petition and on the basis ofmaterial indicated therein to decide whether any action in terms of Section 34 is called for.

Ifthe State Government decides to act on the basis ofpetition filed by any person, it has to examine as to why the person has not availed the remedy offiling an appeal. It is also necessary to examine whether after a long lapse oftime any action ,4 is warranted. In this exercise, filing ofpetition within a reasonable time is inbuilt. What would be reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be adopted or applied. 20. There is another statutory requirement under Section 34. The proviso to Section 34 mandates grant ofreasonable opportunity ofbeing heard to any person who is likely to be affected by the order. These aspects have been highlighted in Pune Municipal Corporation v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. , [2007] 5 SCC 211. 21. In view ofthe aforesaid, the impugned conclusions ofthe High Court are not sustainable. Normally, we would have set aside the order and remanded it to the High Court to decide the matter afresh.

But the learned counsel for respondents l, 2 and 3 on instructions stated that they agree that 3570 sq. mtrs. ofland may be returned to the respondents 1, y· 2 and 3 and development charges and other charges, as payable in law, shall be paid by the said respondents. 22. In view of the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3, we dispose of the appeal with the following directions: (1) The appellant authority shall release 3570 sq. mtrs ofunutilized vacant land on payment ofdevelopment charges and other charges payable under the Development Act. (2) The respondents 1, 2 and 3 shall not be entitled for any land beyond 3570 sq. mtrs relatable to the present dispute. )- ... . 23. The appeal is disposed ofaccordingly with r. o order as to costs. Contempt Petition 239 of 2005 24. In view ofdisposal ofCivil Appeal No. 4329of2003, contempt petition is also disposed of. RP. Appeal and Contempt Petition disposed of.