MANGALORE URBAN Vs. LEELAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order dated 27-6-2005 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W. P. No. 28205/2002 and quashing the orders impugned therein, is questioned in this appeal. The learned 'single Judge has held that the first respondent herein is entitled to retain the land bearing Sy, No. 53/6b of Ullal Village in Mangalore Taluk as owner. The said land was declared as excess land' under the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act (hereinafter referred to as ULC Act) and allotted to the appellant herein without taking possession of the same from the first respondent as required under Section 10 (6) of the ULC Act.

(2.) THE order dated 4-7-1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner declaring the land as excess, was questioned in appeal by first respondent's husband before the Deputy Commissioner. During the pendency of the said appeal, the ULC Act was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Repeal Act ). As per Section 3 of this Act, the pending proceedings stood abated. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 23-10-1999 disposed of the appeal accordingly. Both the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner are quashed by the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved of the same this appeal is filed by the allottee.

(3.) LEARNED AGA Smt. Vijaya A. D. has supported the case pf the Appellant and contended that the decision reported in 1998 (6) Kar Lj 609 (Smt. Yuvarani Kempucheiuvajamman- niavaru Trust v. Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority) relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent is not applicable to the present case as the first respondent was informed to renew her claim for exemption but she has not done so. According to the learned AGA, the exemption application was disposed of and this submission is made on the basis of the parawise remarks furnished by the Deputy Commissipner to the Divisional Commissioner on U-2-1999. It is her contention that since the application under Section 20 of the ULC Act was not pending before second respondent, the decision referred to supra has no application and consequently Section 3 of Repeal Act is not attracted to the fact situation, therefore the learned single Judge has erred in applying the above referred case and granting the relief to the first respondent.