Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 215 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-31

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the petitioner has sought modification/clarification of order dated 8.7.1998 passed by this Court while disposing of CWJC No. 3979 of 1997. 3. It appears that certain order with regard to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) was passed by learned Collector, Patna against this petitioner appealed before the Commissioner of Patna Division. After hearing, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the Collector with certain directions and thus the remand in term was a limited remand. The petitioner challenged this order and prayed that if the matter was to be remanded to the Collector, it should have been an open remand. The effect of such a prayer was that the order passed by the Collector should be set aside in full. By reference to this order, this Court passed the earlier order disposing of the writ application which would show that the petitioners request was accepted and the order of the Collector was set aside giving opportunity to the petitioner to raise all issues all over again before the competent authority i.e. Collector, Patna. It appears that the matter was then left before Collector, Patna and till today no decision was taken by the Collector, as the competent authority. During pendency of the proceeding before the competent authority, the Central Legislature passed the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and in terms of Sec.1 (ii) thereof it was to apply to such other States which adopted this Act by Resolution passed in this behalf in terms of Article 251(2) of the Constitution. Such a resolution was duly passed by the State of Bihar and notified on 26.9.2006 (Annexure -2 to this application). Thus the Central Repealing Act become enforceable in the State of Bihar W.E.F. 26.9.2006. 4. Sec. 4 of the Repealing Act consists of two parts, the substantive part provides that all proceeding relating to any order made under the Principle Act pending immediately before the commencing of this Repealing Act before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate. The effect of this provision of abatement is over all proceedings which are pending at any stage and they would abate. There is a proviso in the shape of an explanation to the above provision. The effect of this provision of abatement is over all proceedings which are pending at any stage and they would abate. There is a proviso in the shape of an explanation to the above provision. It provides that the abatement would not apply to proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Principal Act in respect of which Government had already taken possession of the surplus lands. 5. In other words, the provision of abatement would have an extensive application except in so far as lands which had already been taken over by Govt. 6. It is stated by the petitioner that notwithstanding the said repealing Act and its adoption by the State of Bihar, the competent authority is not closing the proceedings in terms of Sec. 4 of the Repealing Act and thus this application has been filed for Modification of the earlier order of this Court whereby liberty was given to the petitioner to contest the matter afresh before the competent authority at the initial stage itself. 7. State has filed a Counter affidavit in which the facts aforesaid are not disputed. All that it is said that the effect of abatement is a matter which the competent authority is not sure of and has sought clarification from the Law Department of the State. 8. To my mind, there is no confusion and the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Amending Act requires no clarification. It is unambiguous and clear and should have been comprehended by any person not necessarily educated in legal studies. 9. In that view of the matter, I am clear that regarding of Sec. 4 of the Repealing Act, the proceedings in relation to the petitioners land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 shall be deemed to have been abated and no further action is required to be taken in respect of the case being case No. 2/77-78/29/83-84 pending before the competent authority. The order passed by this Court earlier stands modified to the extent above in view of the Repealing Act which has now come into force. 10. This application is accordingly disposed of.