IU /~\ ^c ^.,. \ H1GHCOURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BELASPUR Sjngte : Hon'ble Shri H.L»Datty, CJ, WntPetitioQ No.728 of 1992 PETLTiONER RESPONDENTS Udaya Cooperative Housing Society Limlted, Tatiband, Raipur bearing Registration No.DR/RPR/75/81-82 through its Presldent Shri Ghasiram Chandrakar. Vs. 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Secretar^ Housing and Environment Department Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 2. Coliector Raipur. 3. Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Cejijng & Reguiatton) .Act 1976, Raipur. I . ^ 4. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopa! through its Chairman. 5. Executive- Engineer, Housing Board, Raipur. . i 6. Municipal Corporation Raipur through its Municipai commissioner 7. Raipur Deveiopment Authority, Raipur through its Chief Executive Officer/ 8. Joint Director of Town & Country Planning, Rajpur 9. District Registrar Coilectorate premsses, Raipur (CG) Petition under Artjcies226/227 oftie Constitution of fndia Shri Abhishek Sinha, counse! for the petiitioner. Snri AS Kachhawaha, Government Advooate for the State. ORAL ORDER \ • - : " (Passed on 27" ^^3^^007) The petitioner is a Cooperatlve Housing Society registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooper'ative Societjes Act 1960 ("the Act 1960" for short). The petitioner" Society is in possession of 110 acres. of land spreaa over in Sectors 1 to 4, Tatiband, Raipur (2) The respondents had Jnitiated proceedings against the petitioner-society under the proyislons of Urban Land (Ceiiing & Reguiation) Act, 1976 ("the Act 1976" fqr short) and had deciared certain extent of iand assurpius iand. Thereafter, notifjcations had been issued under Section 8 of the Act 1976. ^ d..- However, they have not taken the possession of the !and that was deolared to be in excess as required under Section 10(2) ofthe Act1976. (3) Aggrieved by the order passed by the responaents declaring that the petitioner is holding excess of iand as envisaged under the provssions of the Act,1976, the petitioner is before this Court In this writ petitlon. Thls Court while entertaining the writ petition had granted an interim order. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner-society continues tc be in possession ofthe Sand declared to be surplus !and. (4) During the pend.ency of this v/rit petition, the Act, 1976 has been repealed by Act No.15 of 1999. The effect of such repea! is considered by the Apex Court in the matter of Swamop Shratiya Tmst Vs of£/Pand others reported in (2090) 6 SCC 325. in the said oase, the Supreme Court obsen/ed as under: 4. !n the counter-affidavit not a \wrd has been said about the pD'ssession of the surpius iand. !n fact, it Is maintained by the appeiiant that the possession is stliS with the appeliant who was a!so granted an snterim order regarding "status quo". 5. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the State had taken possession over the surpius iand, the present proceedings have to be abated and are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Reguiation) Repeai Act, 1999. (5) In view of the Act having been repeaied by Aot No.15 of 1999, and that the petitionsr continues to be in possession of the Sand, It is deciared that the proceedings initiated by the respondents are abated as envlsaged under Section 4 ofthe Act, 1999. (6) With these obse^ations, and directions, the petition is disposed of. Ordered accordingly. 1 Sd/- Chief Justice 1 ^^\ XI-HC-78 OT^T.^r^i^ ^TT^K^t.^Hlil) '^ ^ ^1*1^11 ^(TT^i 3^ -^I^M^, ^Tf1^41(o, t^^l<riy< _ CJ ^ N0. ^-^_[012-_ ^ 200 3<i^i ^5<ch (^i^^T) ^cTTW^cT^TT^T Application 03.05.^ for the petitioner error is taken on. re| The of passing of th baen'mentioned as 27th Marchl 27m April 2007. Therefore, the| is aiiowed. The Oi-der Is corrected to be read of 27th Ivlarch 2007. Ordked ^l<Ml<-l41^ ^H^T^teT^<[^^K ^)3Ti^'R'3TI^T 007 fsled by for' correction of cord. e order has wrongly 2007, whereas 11 Is prayer made.. in the of of the as 27th April 2007, accordingiy, Sd/- Chief Justice ^ 11y Y/ ^te^^4/^ ^ P.T.O. y