(Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Gossner Evangelical Lutheran Church _________________ Appellant
v.
State of Bihar & Anr. _____________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 5519-5520 of 2007, decided on January 19, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Applications for substitution of State of Jharkhand in place of State of Bihar are allowed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In these appeals which relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the admitted position is that possession of the surplus land belonging to the appellant has not been taken by the respondent – State of Jharkhand.
4. There are several decisions of this Court which make it clear that in case possession of the surplus land is not taken, the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) would abate. We may refer to Ritesh Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 677], Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority [(2012) 4 SCC 718] and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280]. In view of these decisions, there is no doubt that the proceedings initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Act stand abated.
5. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that there were no proceedings pending before the Repeal Act was adopted by a Resolution of the State Assembly on 24th January, 2011.
6. On a reading of the decision rendered by the High Court, it is clear that the respondent – State of Jharkhand was required to take proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, but those proceedings were never concluded and are still pending today. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act could not be concluded in view of the interim order passed by this Court. We have seen the interim order passed by this Court on 09.08.2004 and that order relates only to maintaining status quo with regard to possession of the surplus land. There was no prohibition on the State of Jharkhand from continuing the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. It is, therefore, not correct to say that nothing was pending before the State of Jharkhand when the Repeal Act came into force.
7. In view of the several decisions rendered by this Court, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and hold that the proceedings pending against the appellant under the Act stand abated.
8. The appeals are disposed of.
9. Application for Intervention is dismissed.
10. Other pending applications are disposed of.
Civil Appeal No(s).5519-5520/2007
Gossner Evangelical Lutheran Church ___________________ Appellant
v.
State of Bihar & Anr ______________________________ Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and permission to file additional documents and directions)
Date: 19/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Anoop Kumar, Adv.
Mr. P. Narasimhan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Mohd. Waquas, adv.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR
Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, adv.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Applications for substitution of State of Jharkhand in place of State of Bihar are allowed.
12. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
13. Application for Intervention is dismissed.
14. Other pending applications are disposed of.
———
