- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 10 May 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Petition dismissed.
Headnote
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
S. 10(5)-Excess vacant /and-Possession taken by Govem-ment-Compensation-Held, it is not a condition under the Act that payment of compensation be made before utilisation of the land.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Delay condoned.
Counsel for the petitioner admits that a notification under Section 10(5) of the Urban Ceiling Act was published pursuant to which the excess vacant land was surrendered and taken possession of by the Government. Consequently, the land stands vested in the State free from all the en-cumbrances. In what manner the lands require to be utilised has been regulated under the provisions of the Act. It is not a condition, under the Act, that payment of compensation be made before utilisation of the land of which the petitioner was erstwhile owner. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Appeal No. 4093/93 on May, 15, 1995.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13088 of 1996 C.C. No. 2297 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.95 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 4093 of 1995.
Appearances
MJ. Trivedi and S.C. Patel for the Petitioner.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.