PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS INSC 211

Facts:

The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force in the State of Maharashtra on 17-2-1976. On 16-6-1978, the competent authority issued a notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act declaring excess land to be acquired by the State and on 9-1-1979, the competent authority issued a notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act directing the landowners to hand over possession of land within 30 days. The order was challenged in an appeal filed in August 1979. However, nothing was done by the landowners for more than a decade after the order in appeal was passed. In exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act, the said order was set aside, and the case was remitted for reconsideration to the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Pune. The Corporation filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, as the order was passed without hearing the owners and was violative of natural justice. The High Court confirmed the order passed by the State of Maharashtra and the Corporation appealed against it.

Issues:

• Whether the revisional authority had the power to entertain the revision and set aside the order passed by the competent authority under the Act? • Whether the Corporation was an affected party and should have been heard be- fore passing the order? • Whether the order passed by the competent authority was void and liable to be set aside?

Holding:

The Supreme Court held that the revisional authority had the power to entertain the re- vision and set aside the order passed by the competent authority under the Act. The Corporation was an affected party and should have been heard before passing the or- der. The order passed by the competent authority was not void and liable to be set aside. The matter was remitted to the revisional authority for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties, including the Corporation. All proceedings taken in pursuance of the order passed in revision were of no consequence and no effect can be given to them. The appeal was allowed with costs.

Rationale:

The Act confers on the Government revisional jurisdiction. The remedy of revision is alternative to appeal and not additional or supplementary. No period for revision is provided in the Act. The court would import the concept of "reasonable time" where the law does not prescribe limitation. The High Court had ignored an important fact that setting aside of order by the revisional authority would not have resulted in restoring il- legal order inasmuch as the original order passed under Section 8 of the Act was not challenged by the landowners in an appeal filed in 1979. The order passed by the competent authority, therefore, cannot be held void, stillborn or purported order. The State authorities must act fairly and reasonably. The appeal was allowed with costs.