Summary
The challenge to refusal of an urban land ceiling exemption failed because possession had been taken by the State before repeal and no exemption had been granted when repeal commenced. The record and the appellant’s own pleadings defeated the contention that a civil court status quo order prevented possession. The repeal saved completed vesting accompanied by possession and existing exemption orders, but did not preserve this claim for a fresh exemption.
Issues
- Whether possession had been taken before repeal despite the asserted civil court restraint.
- Whether the exemption claim survived repeal of the ceiling legislation.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(1), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999Saved vesting where possession had been taken and the validity of existing exemption orders, but not the appellant’s ungranted exemption claim. (¶ 15–18)
Held
- The pleadings acknowledged that the injunction operated against the landlords rather than the competent authority, which was later deleted from the suit. There was no proof that the status quo order had been served on that authority before possession was taken. (¶ 11–13)
- The panchnama, concurrent findings and uncontroverted pleadings established State possession on 24 July 1990. The Court rejected the attempt to interpret a mark in the panchnama as showing that possession had not been taken. (¶ 13)
- The appellant had not challenged vesting and its statutory consequences or squarely put possession in issue. A section 20 claim did not survive repeal merely as a claim to acquire an exemption; the saving protected an exemption already granted, which was absent here. (¶ 14–18)
- The original owners’ connected challenge also lacked merit; their later impleadment in the intra-court appeal did not overcome the substantive conclusions. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeal and connected special leave petition dismissed without costs. High Court judgment sustaining rejection of the exemption application left undisturbed.