Munshi Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dist. Judge, Aligarh & Anr
- SCC(2008) 3 SCC 301
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
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Ceiling Act has already been repealed and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 has now come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