Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Munshi Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dist. Judge, Aligarh & Anr

Supreme Court14 February 2008Harjit Singh Bedi · Tarun Chatterjee

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Section 4 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999, which provides for the abatement of proceedings under the principal Act, applies only to proceedings that were pending immediately before the commencement of the Repeal Act in any court, tribunal or other authority; where no such proceeding was pending at the time of repeal, Section 4 has no application and the proceedings do not abate.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIADCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6709 OF 2001

Munshi Lal (Dead) by Lrs. ... Appellant

Versus

Distt. Judge, Aligarh & Anr. ...Respondents

ORDER

This appeal has been filed against the final judgment

and order dated 28th of April, 1995 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition

NO.11097 of 1995 by which the High Court had dismissed

the writ petition filed by the appellant against an order

dated 25th of February, 1995 of the Appellate Authority,

Urban Land Ceiling, (District Judge), Aligarh.

By the appellate order, the claim of the appellant that

in determining ceiling area of the petitioner the declaration

made to the effect that the land of the petitioner was

declared surplus was incorrect. Since the Urban Land

Ceiling Act has already been repealed and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 has now come

into force and in view of Section 4 of the said Act the

proceedings under the Act has already abated. In our view,

Section 4 of the Act has no manner of application in view of

the fact that no proceeding related to any order to be made

or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending

immediately before the commencement of the Act was

pending in any court, tribunal or other authority. In this

case, no proceeding was pending at the time of repeal of the

Act by which the proceeding could be said to have been

abated.

That being the position, we are not in a position to

hold that in view of Section 4 of the Act, the appeal has

abated. So far as the impugned order is concerned, we do

not find any infirmity in the same and thus the appeal is

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

.............................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .............................J. February 14, 2008. [Harjit Singh Bedi]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free