-1- ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1018 of 1999 Pune Municipal Transport ) through the Transport Manager) Swargate, Pune 037 ) ..Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ) through the Secretary, ) Housing and Special ) Assistance Department, ) Maharashtra State, ) Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032) 2. The Additional Collector &) the Competent Authority ) Pune Urban Agglomeration ) Pune, P.M.T.Commercial ) Complex, 2nd floor, ) Shankarseth Road, Pune 37 ) 3. The Tahsildar Haveli, ) Taluka Haveli, Dist.Pune ) 4. Smt.Sulochana Chandrakant ) Galande, through power of ) attorney holder Shri ) Kashinath Pandurang Galande) Warje, Malwadi,Pune 29 ) ..Respondents Shri R.G.Ketkar for petitioners. Shri C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 Shri R.N.Sanghavi for respondent no.4 CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK JJ. D.G.KARNIK JJ. D.G.KARNIK JJ. 20th February, 2006 20th February, 2006 20th February, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per D.G.Karnik J.) ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per D.G.Karnik J.) ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per D.G.Karnik J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioners challenge the order dated 29th September, 1998 of the -2- respondent no.1 State (passed by Mr.Raj K.Purohit, Hon’ble Minister of State for Urban Development and Urban Ceiling) purportedly under sec.34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ULC Act). 3. Respondent no.4 was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.79/16 of village Kothrud, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (for short the said land). In the regional plan of the city of Pune sanctioned on 7th February, 1976 the said land was shown in the residential zone. Since the respondent no.4 was holding vacant lands in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the ULC Act, he filed the statement under sec.6. After hearing the respondent no.4 an order under sec.8(4) of ULC Act was passed declaring the said land as surplus. Thereafter notifications under sub sections (1) and (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act were also passed some time prior to year 1978-79 and the land was vested in the State Government. Possession of the land was also taken by the State Government under sec.10(5) of the ULC Act. 4. The petitioner Municipal Corporation -3- approached the Government for allotment of the said land to it for establishment of bus depot and construction of staff quarters. By an order dated 23rd May, 1979 the respondent no.2 allotted the said land to the petitioner for the purpose of bus depot and staff quarters subject to payment of occupancy price of Rs.43,900/-. The occupancy price was paid and the possession was delivered to the petitioner on 27th June, 1979. Since then the petitioner is in possession of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on part of the land the bus depot has been constructed in the year 1988 but staff quarters have not yet been constructed. Under the erroneous belief that the entire land was allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of bus depot only the petitioner sought permission of the State Government for utilisation of the remaining land for construction of staff quarters, though such permission was not necessary as initial allotment was for a bus depot and staff quarters. No orders appear to have been passed on the application made by the petitioner for permission to construct the staff quarters obviously because such orders were not necessary as the initial allotment -4- was for bus depot and staff quarters. 5. Long after the said land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act and after the same was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1998, the respondent no.4 appears to have approached the Government for revising the initial order passed by the Competent Authority under sec.8(4) of the ULC Act on 13th April, 1977. This was done on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993(2) SCC 546. The Government purporting to exercise the powers under sec.34 of the ULC Act, by the impugned order dated 29th September, 1998 revised and set aside the original order dated 13th April, 1977 passed under sec.8(4) of the ULC Act. Consequently the Government also set aside the acquisition of the land and vesting notification under sec.10(3) as also the Notification of taking possession under sec.10(5). By the same order the Government also set aside the allotment of the land made to the petitioner and directed that the possession of the land should be taken back from the petitioner and be handed over to respondent no.4. That order is -5- impugned in this petition by the petitioner. 7. We are satisfied that the impugned order needs to be set aside for the reasons mentioned below. 8. The original order under sec.8(4) was passed on 13th April, 1977. The impugned order revising the order dated 13th April, 1977 was passed purportedly under sec.34 of the ULC Act on 29th September, 1998 on the application made by respondent no.4 some time in the year 1997. This means that the application for revision was made after the lapse of 20 years and the order was passed after the lapse of 21 years. It is true that section 34 of the ULC Act does not prescribe any period of limitation within which the power of revision can be exercised. However, it is settled principle of law that when no period of limitation is prescribed the power of revision must be exercised within a reasonable period. In the Automotive Research the Automotive Research the Automotive Research Association of India and anr. Vs. State of Association of India and anr. Vs. State of Association of India and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Maharashtra and others Maharashtra and others reported in 2002(4) All MR 423, a Division Bench of this Court while -6- considering the very issue has held that the revisional power under sec.34 has to be exercised within a reasonable time and has further held that the reasonable period of time would be 3 years. In Sunanda Manohar Sunanda Manohar Sunanda Manohar Jadhav Vs. Competent Authority under the Jadhav Vs. Competent Authority under the Jadhav Vs. Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and others (Writ Petition No.5010 of 1999 decided others (Writ Petition No.5010 of 1999 decided others (Writ Petition No.5010 of 1999 decided on 30th January, 2006) on 30th January, 2006) on 30th January, 2006) we have followed the decision in the Automative Research Association of India Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) that the power of revision must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. We have also held that in absence of any special circumstances the reasonable period cannot exceed beyond the period of 3 years. Nothing was pointed out to us that there existed any exceptional circumstances which necessitated the revisional power to be exercised after the expiry of 3 years. We are, therefore, satisfied that the respondents should not have exercised the revisional power after the expiry of 20 years. 9. We may incidentally observe that the impugned order was passed by the State Government purportedly to give effect of the -7- judgment of the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P.(supra). That decision has been overruled in State of State of State of A.P.and others Vs. N.Audikesava Reddy and A.P.and others Vs. N.Audikesava Reddy and A.P.and others Vs. N.Audikesava Reddy and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 227 others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 227 others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 227. In the latter case the Supreme Court has held that the master plan prepared as per law in force even subsequent to the enforcement of the ULC Act is to be taken into consideration to determine whether a particular piece of land is vacant land or not and to that extent Atia Begum’s case is not correctly decided. Therefore, the very basis on which the revisional order was passed also does not survive in the present case. 10. For these reasons the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Respondents shall pay costs of this petition to the petitioners. (D.G.KARNIK J.) (S.B.MHASE J.) (D.G.KARNIK J.) (S.B.MHASE J.) (D.G.KARNIK J.) (S.B.MHASE J.)+