Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 620 (PNJ)

Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab

2005-05-18

JASBIR SINGH

body2005
ORDER Jasbir Singh, J. - Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ of Certiorari to quash orders dated 28.1.1985 and 25.5.1986, Annexures P/1 and P/6 respectively. 2. It is apparent from record that vide order, Annexure P/1, competent authority-respondent No. 3 by invoking provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, while deciding the question of surplus land with the petitioner, declared 11 kanals 6 marlas of land surplus with the petitioner. Appeal against the order referred to above, was dismissed by the appellate authority, vide order dated 29.5.1986, Annexure P/6. Hence this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforesaid Act was repealed by the Parliament by passing Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No. 15 of 1999). He further submitted that a notification was also issued by the State of Punjab on 30th May, 2000 authenticating repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Counsel contends that in view of the passing of Act No. 15 of 1999, and the notification issued by the State of Punjab, orders under challenge, stand abated and writ petition is required to be allowed in that regard. 4. He has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 8432 of 1987 (Tilak Raj Katyal v. The State of Punjab and others), rendered on January 16, 2001, wherein while dealing with a similar situation, it was held that in view of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No. 15 of 1999) and the Notification issued by the State of Punjab, impugned orders passed by the authorities while exercising powers under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, have become meaningless, having abated. 5. Shri Bishnoi has failed to controvert the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner. In view of the situation explained above, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 8432 of 1987. Orders impugned in the present petition are declared to have been abated having no effect against rights of the petitioner. Petition allowed.