SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDEversusPUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND ORS.

                      (2010] 9 S.C.R. 476


A           SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE
                                  v.
           PUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2007)

                         AUGUST 03, 2010
B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

        Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:

c         s. 10(3) -Acquisition of excess vacant land - Possession
    of land taken over by State Government - Right of original
    owner to challenge change of user and obtain possession -
    Held: Once land vests in the State absolutely, free from all
    encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power of the
    State to change user of the land in the manner it chooses -
0
    It is not the corycern of the land owner how the acquired land
    is used - He only has a right to get compensation for the
    same - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 48 - General Clauses
    Act, 1897 - s.21.

E       Repeal of the Act - Effect on pending proceedings -
  Held: The proceedings pending in any courl would stand
  abated provided the land owner remained in possession of
  land on the date of commencement of repealing Act of 1999
  - On facts, since possession of suit land was taken in 1979
F itself, the repeal of the Act in 1999 would not confer any
  benefit on the owner of the land - Urban Land (Ceiling and
  Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 .

       s. 34 - Revision - Limitation - Acquisition of excess
G vacant land - Revision filed two decades after the State
  Government had taken possession of the acquired land -
  Held: Not maintainable - Although no time limit is prescribed
  in s.34 for exercising revisionary power, the provision has to


H                                476
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALAN DE v. PUNE 4 77
          MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT
be construed in a manner to make it workable - The              A
revisionary power cannot be used arbitrarily at belated stage
for the reason that the order passed in revision uls.34 is a
judicial order - Revision - Limitation - Delayllaches -
 Interpretation of statutes.
                                                                B
    Words and phrases:

    Word 'encumbrance' and expression 'free from
encumbrance' - Meaning of

     The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976          C
came ·into force on 17 .2.1976. On the said date, the suit
land was not within the urban limits; however, it was
included in the urban area residential zone w.e.f. 17.5.1976
by extending the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The
suit land belonging to the appellant was acquired under         o
the Act i.n the year 1978-79. Its possession was taken and
handed over to the respondent-authority for establishing
a bus depot. In 1998, the appellant filed a revision under
Section 34 of the Act, before the competent authority
contending that the land ought not to have been                 E
acquired under the Act on the ground that on the date of
its commencement, the suit land was not within the urban
area. In order to substantiate the claim, the appellant
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
*Atia Mohammadi Begum wherein it was held that for the
                                                                F
purpose of the Act, the categorization of the land in the
Master Plan in existence at the time of commencement
of the Act was a relevant factor and any subsequent
change made in the Master Plan would not be taken into
consideration. The revision application was allowed by
order dated-,29.09.1998.                                        G

     The respondent filed a writ petition before the High
Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition inspite of
the fact that meanwhile, the Act of 1976 was repealed by
                                                                H
    478      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 9 S.C.R.

A the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
  w.e.f. 18.3.1999. The order of the High Court was under
  challenge _in the instant appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B      HELD: 1.1. The Scheme of the Urban Land (Ceiling
  and Regulation) Act, 1976 provides that the prescribed
  authority shall make an order declaring the surplus land.
  Th.e ·1and would be acquired by the State and the tenure
  holder would be entitled to have an amount of
C compensation. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that after
  the acquisition and publication of the Notification under
  Section 10(1) of the Act, "the land shall be deemed to
  have vested absolutely in the State Government free from
  all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified".
D The provisions of Section 10(3) are analogous to Section
  16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Acquisition
  proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned in exercise
  of the powers under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 or
  Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 once the
E possession of the land has been taken. [Paras 6, 8] [487-
  D-E; 487-G-H]

       The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad
  Sharma & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1593; LT. Governor of Himachal
  Pradesh & Anr. v. Sri Avinash Sharma AIR 1970 SC 1576;
F Pratap & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1296;
  Mandir Shree Sita Ramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v.
  Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 3581;
  Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah
  & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508; Hari Ram & Anr. v. State of
G Haryana & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 621; The Fruit & Vegetable
  Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust AIR 1957
  SC 344 - relied on.

      1.2. "Encumbrance" means the burden caused by an
H act or omission of man and not that created by nature. It
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                     479
          MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT
means a burden or charge upon property or a claim or               A
lien on the land. The term "free from encumbrances"
means vesting of land in the State without any charge or
burden on it. Once the land vests in the State free from
all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power
of the State Government to change user of the land in the          B
manner it chooses. It is then not the concern of the land-
owner how his land is used and whether the land is being
used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any
other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the
land vests in the State. He has a right to get                     c
compensation only for the same. The person interested
cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any
ground, whatsoever. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 16] [488-E-F; 489-
B-F; 490-F-G]

     Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Ors.     D
AIR 1955 SC 298; H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Shiv
K. Sharma & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 954; Al Champdany
Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 486);
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tarsem Singh & Ors. AIR 2001
SC 3431; Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors.        E
AIR 1993 SC 2517; Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. v. State of
Bihar & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 31; UP. Jal Nigam, Lucknow v.
Mis. Katra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. AIR 1996 SC
1170; Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 405; Allahabad                     F
Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC
424; State of Kera/a & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr. AIR
1997 SC 2703; M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 322; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A.
Rasheed & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development             G
Authority & Ors. v. R. Hanumaiah & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508;
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Syed Akbar AIR
2005 SC 492 - relied on.

     1.3. In the instant case, there was no pleading by the        H
    480    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 9 S.C.R.


A appellant in respect of the receipt of compensation. No
  explanation was furnished as to under what
  circumstances the appeal was not filed. The suit land was
  acquired in 1979. Revision was preferred in 1998, after
  expiry of about two decades. No doubt, Section 34 of the
B 1976 Act does not prescribe any limitation during which
  the revisional power can be exercised by the State
  Government either on application or suo motu. The
  legislature in its wisdom did not fix a time limit for
  exercising the revisional power nor inserted the words
c "at any time" in Section 34. But that would not mean that
  the legislature intended to leave the orders passed under
  the Act open to variation for an indefinite period
  inasmuch as it would have the effect of rendering title of
  the holders/allottees permanently precarious and in a
  state of perpetual uncertainty. The court has to construe
0
  the statutory provision in a way which makes the
  provisions workable, advancing the purpose and object
  of enactment of the statute. In view of this, the revisional
  powers cannot be used arbitrarily at belated stage for the
  reason that the order passed in revision under Section
E 34 is a judicial order. What should be reasonable time,
  would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
  case. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 23] [490-G-H; 491-A-F; 493-F-H;
  494-A]

F      Gu/am Mustafa & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
  AIR 1977 SC 448; C Padma & Ors. v. Deputy Secretary to
  the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627;
  Bhagat Singh etc. v State of UP. & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 436;
  Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja v. State of West Bengal AIR
G 2002 SC 2532; Notthern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant
  Singh & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 335; State of Gujarat v. Patel
  Raghav Natha & Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1297; lbrahimpatnam
  Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy & Ors.
  (2003) 7 SCC 667; State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v.
H T Yadagiri Reddy & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 299 - relied on.
  SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE 481
           MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT
     2.1. If some person has taken a relief from the court        A
by filing a writ petition immediately after the cause of
action had arisen, others cannot take the benefit thereof
resorting to legal proceedings belatedly. They cannot
take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage for the
reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus          B
of the order passed at the behest of some diligent
person. However, it would be a different case altogether,
where the law, under which an order has been passed,
is declared ultra vires/unconstitutional and the order,
thus, passed is rendered a nullity. The party may ask for         c
appropriate relief as property had been acquired under
the law, later so declared void. It was held in ** N.
Audikesava Reddy that the master plan prepared as per
law in force even subsequent to enforcement of the Act
is to be taken into consideration to determine whether a          0
particular piece of land is vacant land or not and, to that
extent, * Atia Mohammadi Begum is not correctly decided
. In view of that, there is no justification for this Court to
enforce the law laid down in *Atia Mohammadi Begum,
which was subsequently held not to be valid law. [Paras
                                                                  E
24, 28, 30] [494-8; 495-C-D; 497-8-C]

       **State of A.P. & Ors. v. N. Audikesava Reddy & Ors. AIR
  2002 SC 5; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya &
. Ors.(1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana
  & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2366; Mis. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union      F
  of India & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 674; Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. v.
  Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anr. AIR 1983 SC 643 - relied
  OIJ.

    *Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1993        G
SC 2465 - referred to.

    2.2. Undoubtedly, the Act of 1976 stood repealed by
the Act of 1999. The proceeding pending in any court

                                                                  H
    482    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 9 S.C.R.

A relating to the Act of 1976, would abate, if the possession
  of the land had not been taken from the owner. Therefore,
  in a case, where the possession has been taken, the
  repeal of the Act would not confer any benefit on the
  owner of the land. In the instant case, the suit land was
B handed over to the respondent for construction of the
  residential quarters for the staff. The appellant, for the
  reason best known to her, did not file any appeal before
  the Land Tribunal, though Act of 1976 provided for two
  appeals. She filed the revision under Section 34 in 1998
c after five years of the judgment of this Court in *Atia
  Mohammadi Begum which stood over-ruled by the
  subsequent judgment in **N. Audikesava Reddy. The
  revision was allowed by the State Government without
  taking into consideration the point of delay, rather it relied
  upon its own circulars. The State Government did not
0
  consider the consequences and, particularly, the issue
  of dis-possession of the appellant from the land in
  dispute in 1978 itself. The factual position makes it clear
  that the appellant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever
E as per the law, as it exists today. [Paras 31, 32, 34] [497-
  D-H; 498-A-E-H; 499-A]

         Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs.
    State of UP. & Ors, (2000) 6 SCC 325; Ghasitey Lal Sahu &
    Anr. Vs. Competent Authority (200~) 13 SCC 452; Mukarram
F   Ali Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC
    90 - relied on.
                        Case Law Reference:
      AIR 1993 SC 2465         referred to    Paras 2, 3 ,4, 5,
G                                             29, 30, 32, 33
      AIR 2002 SC 50           relied on      Paras 3, 5, 29, 33
      AIR 1966 SC 1593         relied on      Para 8
      AIR 1970 SC 1576         relied on      Para 8
H
SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE         483
         MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT
 AIR 1996 SC 1296    relied on   Paras 8,12         A

 AIR 2005 SC 3581    relied on   Para 8
 (2005) 12 sec 508   relied on   Para 8
 (201 O) 3 sec 621   relied on   Para 8             B
 AIR 1957 SC 344     relied on   Para 9
 AIR 1955 SC 298     relied on   Para 10
 AIR 2005 SC 954     relied on   Para 10
                                                    c
 (2009) 4 sec 486    relied on   Para 10
 AIR 2001 SC 3431    relied on   Para 11
 AIR 1993 SC 2517    relied on   Para 12
 (1995) 6 sec 31     relied on   Para 12            D

 AIR 1996 SC 1170    relied on   Para 12
 (1996) 6 sec 405    relied on   Para 12
 (1996) 6 sec 424    relied on   Para 12            E
 AIR 1997 SC 2703    relied on   Para 12
 (2000) 4 sec 322    relied on   Para 12
 (2004) 4 sec 460    relied on   Para 12
                                                    F
 (2005) 12 sec 508   relied on   Para 12
 AIR 2005 SC 492     relied on   Para 12
 AIR 1977 SC 448      '
                     relied on   Para 13
                                                    G
 (1997) 2 sec 627    relied on   Para 14
 AIR 1999 SC 436     relied on   Para 15
 AIR 2002 SC 2532    relied on   Para 15
                                                    H
    484      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2010] 9 S.C.R.


A     (2003) 1 sec 335            relied on        Para 15
      AIR 1969 SC 1297            relied on        Para 20
      (2003) 1 sec 667            relied on        Para 21
      (2008) 16 sec 299           relied on        Para 22
B
       (1996) 6 sec 267           relied on        Para 25
      AIR 1997 SC 2366            relied on        Para 26
      AIR 1989 SC 674             relied on        Paras 27, 28
c
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 492
    of 2007.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 20.02.2006 of the High
  Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1018 of
D 1999.

        A.K. Ganguli, Aparna Jha, Abhishek Yadav, Vikram, Braj
    Kishore Mishra, Amel Chitale, Nirnimesh Dube, Sanjay V.
    Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the appearing parties
E
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
    preferred against the Judgment and order of Bombay High
    Court dated 20th February, 2006, passed in Writ Petition No.
F   1018 of 1999, filed by the respondent herein setting aside the
    order passed by the State Government withdrawing the
    proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling
    and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as, "Act, 1976").

G        2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case
    are that the Act, 1976 was enacted to provide for imposition
    of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations fur the
    acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate
    the construction of buildings on such land and for matters
H
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                      485
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
connected therewith. The said Act prescribed the maximum            A
ceiling to whi<'.h the land can be retained by the owner and
determination df the surplus land and transfer thereof in favour
of the State after drawing the final statement under Section 9
of the Act, 1976, and the State would acquire the vacant land
in excess of the ceiling limit under Section 10 of the Act, 1976.   B
The Act came into force on 17th February, 1976. On the said
date, the suit land was not within urban limits, however it was
included in the urban area residential zone only with effect from
17.05.1976, by extending the limits of the Municipal
Corporation. The suit land was acquired under the Act, 1976,        c
in the years 1978-1979 and its possession was taken and
handed over to Pune Municipal Transport (for short PMT) for
establishing a bus depot and staff quarters. In 1988, the bus
depot was constructed on a part of the suit land, however, the
appellant preferred a revision under Section 34 of the Act,
                                                                    0
1976, dated 6.4.1998 contending that the land ought not to have
been acquired under the Act, 1976, on the ground that on the
date of commencement of the Act, 1976, i.e. 17.2.1976, the
suit land was not within the limits of urban area. In order to
substantiate the claim, reliance was placed on the Judgment         E
of this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of UP. &
Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2465, wherein it has been held that for the
purpose of the Act, 1976, the categorization of the land in the
Master Plan in existence at the time of commencement of the
Act into force was a relevant factor and any subsequent change
in the Master Plan cannot be taken into consideration. The said     F
application was allowed by the Hon'ble Minister, exercising his
revisional powers by order dated 29.09.1998.

      3. Being aggrieved, the PMT filed writ petition No. 1018
of 1999 before the High Court of Maharashtra and the said writ      G
petition has been allowed vide Judgment and order dated
20.02.2006 in spite of the fact that the Act, 1976 stood repealed
by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
(hereinafter called 'Act 1999') with effect from 18.03.1999.
Subsequent thereto, this Court in State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. N.       H
    486     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A Audikesava Reddy & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 5 overruled the
  Judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra). Hence, this
  appeal.

       4. Sh. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the
  appellant, has submitted that the High Court erred in interfering
8
  with the order of the Revisional Authority, which was fully justified
  being in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Atia
  Mohammadi Begum (Supra). The provisions of Section 34 of
  the Act, 1976, do not provide for any limitation and in case,
C proceedings had been initiated against the appellant in
  contravention of the Act, 1976 itself, the order passed by the
  prescribed authority dated 23.05.1979 was a nullity, and,
  therefore, was unenforceable and inexecutable. It has also been
  pointed out by Mr. Ganguly that originally, the land was allotted
  to PMT for establishing a bus depot, though the land was
D earmarked for residential purposes, thus, it was not permissible
  for the respondent authority to change the user of the land. If
  the land is vested in the State free from all encumbrances
  without any authority of law, the original tenure holder is entitled
  to possession thereof. The Act, 1976, itself stood repealed and
E is no more in force. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

        5. On the contrary, Sh. Sanjay V. Kharde and Sh. Amol
  Chitale, learned counsel appearing for respondents, have
  submitted that the judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum
F (supra) has been overruled by this Court in N. Audikesava
  Reddy (supra). Therefore, it cannot be held that Atia
  Mohammadi Begum (supra) laid down the correct law. The
  order passed by the prescribed authority dated 23.05.1979
  attained finality as it was not challenged by the appellant by
G filing an appeal under Section 12 before the Urban Land
  Tribunal, though the Act, 1976, also provides for a second
  appeal to the High Court. The appellant could not maintain the
  Revision after expiry of about two decades. The Government
  of Maharashtra could not have entertained the Revision at such
  belated stage. The revision was liable to be rejected only on
H
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                        487
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

the ground of delay. The land, after being declared surplus           A
under the Act, 1976, was acquired under Section 10 of the Act,
1976, and it vested in the State absolutely free from all
encumbrances. The land once vested cannot be divested. After
vesting the land in the State, in case, the State authority allots
the land to any other department or corporation for a specific        B
purpose, it does not loose the competence to change the user
of the land and in case, it is changed, the original tenure holder
cannot be heard raising any grievances whatsoever. The Act,
1976, stood repealed, but this fact would have no bearing on
this case for the reason that possession of the suit land haq         c
been taken in 1979 itself. The appeal lacks merit and is liable
to be dismissed.                                                 ·

     6. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The
Scheme of the Act, 1976 provides that the prescribed authority        D
shall make an order declaring the surplus land. The land would
be acquired by the State and tenure holder is entitled to have
an amount of compensation. Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976,
provides that after acquisition and publication of the Notification
under Section 10(1) of the Act. 1976 "the land shall be deemed        E
to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from
all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified".

     7. Section 11 of the Act, 1976, provides for the Mode of
Payment of the amount for vacant land acquired. Any person            F
aggrieved, has a right to file an appeal before the Land Tribunal
and a second appeal before the High Court.

    8. The provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 are
analogous to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter called the 'Act 1894'). Acquisition proceedings          G
cannot be withdrawn/abandoned in exercise of the powers
under Section 48 of the Act 1894 or Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 once the possession of the land has been
taken. (Vide The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Vishnu
Prasad Sharma & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1593; LT. Governor of               H
    488       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970
  SC 1576; Pratap & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR
  1996 SC 1296; Mandir Shree Sita Ramji alias Shree Sitaram
  Bhandar Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., AIR 2005 SC
  3581; Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. Vs. R.
B Hanumaiah & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Hari Ram & Anr.
  Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 621).

      9. The meaning of the word 'vesting' has been considered
  by this Court time and again. In The Fruit & Vegetable
  Merchants Union Vs. The Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1957
C SC 344, this Court held that the meaning of word 'vesting' varies
  as per the context of the Statute in which the property vests.
  While considering the case under Sections 16 and 17 of the
  Act 1894, the Court held as under:-

D         " ... the property acquired becomes the property of
          Government without any condition or limitations either as
          to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that
          vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or
          limited duration." (Emphasis added).
E
        10. "Encumbrance" actually means the burden caused by
  an act or omission of man and not that created by nature. It
  means a burden or charge upon property or a claim or lien on
  the land. It means a legal liability on property. Thus, it constitutes
  a burden on the title which diminishes the value of the land. It
F may be a mortgage or a deed of trust or a lien of an easement.
  An encumbrance, thus, must be a charge on the property. It must
  run with the property. (Vide Collector of Bombay Vs.
  Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 298; H.P.
  State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Shiv K. Sharma & Ors., AIR
G 2005 SC 954; and Al Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Official
  Liquidator & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 486).

        11. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tarsem Singh &
  Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3431, this Court held that the terminology
H 'free from all encumbrances' used in Section 16 of the Act 1894,
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE 489
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
is wholly unqualified and would en-compass the extinguishing        A
of "all rights, title and interests including easementary rights"
when the title vests in the State.

    Thus, "free from encumbrances" means vesting of land in
the State without any charge or burden in it. Thus, State has       B
absolute title/ownership over it.

      12. In Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. Vs. State of UP. &
Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517, this Court held that once land vests
in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested.
The same view has been reiterated in Awadh Bihari Yadav &           C
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; ( 1995) 6 SCC 31; U. P. Jal
Nigam, Lucknow Vs. Mis. Kalra Properlies (P) Ltd., Lucknow
& Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1170; Pratap & Anr. (Supra);
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 405; Allahabad                     D
Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., ( 1996) 6
SCC 424; State of Kera/a & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai &
Anr., Al R 1997 SC 2703; M. Ramalinga The var Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors, (2000) 4 SCC 322; Printers (Mysore) Ltd.
 Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore               E
Development Authority & Ors. Vs. R. Hanumaiah & Ors.,
(2005) 12 SCC 508; and Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Anr. Vs. Syed Akbar, AIR 2005 SC 492.

      13. So far as the change of user is concerned, it is a
                                                                    F
settled legal proposition that once land vests in the State free
from all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power
of the State Government to change user of the land in the
manner it chooses.

     In a similar situation, in Gu/am Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The        G
State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, this Court held
as under:-

     "Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested
     in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no         H
    490      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A         concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for
          invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by
          which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided
          because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a
          public purpose other than the one stated in
B         the ....... declaration."

       14. Re-iterating a similar view in C. Padma & Ors. Vs.
    Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,
    (1997) 2 SCC 627, this Court held that if by virtue of a valid
C   acquisition of land, land stands vested in the State, thereafter,
    claimants are not entitled to restoration of possession on the
    grounds that either the original public purpose is ceased to be
    in operation or the land could not be used for any other
    purposes.

D       15. In Bhagat Singh etc. Vs. State of UP. & Ors., AIR
    1999 SC 436; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja Vs. State of
    West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532; and Northern Indian Glass
    Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335, this
    Court held that, the land user can be changed by the Statutory
E   Authority after the land vests in the State free from all
    encumbrances.

       16. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that
  once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all
  encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land owner how his
F land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose
  for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes
  persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a
  right to get compensation only for the same. The person
  interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any
G ground, whatsoever.

         17. In the instant case, there is no pleading by the appellant
    in respect of the receipt of compensation. No explanation could
    be furnished as to under what circumstances the appeal was
H
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                        491
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

not filed if the appellant was so aggrieved by the order of final     A
assessment under Section 9 of the Act, 1976.

     18. The suit land was acquired in 1979. Revision was
preferred in 1998, after expiry of about two decades. Section
34 reads as under:-                                                   B
    "The State Government may, on its own motion, call for and
    examine the records of any order passed or proceeding
    taken under the provisions of this Act and against which
    no appeal has been preferred under Section 12 or Section
    30 or Section 33 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to C
    the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity .
    of such procedure and pass such order with respect
    thereto as it may think fit .......... "

      19. Undoubtedly, Section 34 does not prescribe any              0
limitation during which the Revisional power can be exercised
by the State Government either on application or suo moto. The
question does arise as to whether absence of limitation in
Section 34 confers unfettered power to vary or revoke the order
of the prescribed authority without any outside limitation in point
                                                                      E
of duration i.e. does it confer an everlasting or interminable
power in point of time. If the contention raised by Mr. Ganguly
that such provisions of Section 34 do not prescribe any
limitation, and it confers an interminable power upon the State
Government in point of time to exercise the Revisional power,
is accepted, there will be no finality of the proceedings taken       F
under the Act, 1976.

     20. In State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors. AIR
1969 SC 1297, this Court considered a similar provision in
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, which also did not                    G
provide any limitation for exercising the Revisional power by
the Commissioner under Sections 65 and 211 of the Code. The
Court held that in spite of the fact that the provisions do not
prescribe for any limitation for .exercising such Revisional
powers, "this power must be exercised in reasonable time and          H
    492       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the
  facts of the case and the nature of the order, which is being
  revised". The Court further explained that if the power is not
  exercised within the reasonable time, it may disturb the
  possession of the person after an inordinate delay and the
8 occupant who had spent his life savings in developing the land,
  may lose the benefit thereof. Therefore, the authority must not
  entertain revisions at a belated stage.

       21. In lbrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham
  Vs. K. Suresh Reddy & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 667, this Court
C considered the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Tilangana
  Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, wherein the
  provisions contained in Section 50-8(4) empowered the
  statutory authority to exercise suo moto revisional power at any
  time. The Court held as under :-
D
       Use of the words "at any time" in sub-Section (4) of Section
       50-8 of the Act only indicates that no specific period of
       limitation is prescribed within which the suo moto power
       could be exercised reckoning or starting from a particular
E      date advisedly and contextually. Exercise of suo moto
       power depended on facts and circumstances of each
       case. In cases of fraud, this power could be exercised
       within a reasonable time from the date of detection or
       discovery of fraud. While exercising such power, several
F      factors  need to be kept in mind such as effect on the rights
       of the third parties over the immovable property due to
       passage of considerable time, change of the provisions
       of other Acts (such as Land Ceiling Act) ........ .

          Use of the words "at any time" in sub-section (4) of Section
G         50-8 of the Act cannot be rigidly read letter by letter. It must
          be read and construed contextually and reasonably. If one
          has to simply proceed on the basis of the dictionary
          meaning of the words "at any time", the suo moto power
          under sub-Section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act could be
H         exercised even after decades and then it would lead to
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                        493
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     anomc;lous position leading to uncertainty and                   A
     complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties,
   . that too, over immovable properties. Orders attaining
     finality and certainty of the rights of the parties accrued in
     the light of the orders passed must have sanctity. Exercise
     of suo moto power "at any time" only rneans that no              B
     specific period such as days, months or years are not
     prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But, that does
     not mean that "at any time" should be unguided and
     arbitrary. In this view, "at any time" must be understood as
     within a reasonable time depending on the facts and              c
     circumstances of each case in the absence of prescribed
     period of limitation."

    22. The said judgment was approved and followed by this . \
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. T. Yadagiri Reddy (}
& Ors., (2008) 16   sec  299.

     23. The legislature in its wisdom did not fix a time limit for
exercising the revisional power nor inserted the words "at any
time" in Section 34 of the Act, 1976. It does not mean that the
legislature intended to leave the orders passed under the Act         E
open to variation for an indefinite period inasmuch as it would
have the effect of rendering title of the holders/allottee(s)
permanently precarious and in a state of perpetual uncertainty.
In case, it is assumed that the legislature has conferred an
everlasting and interminable power in point of time, the title over   F
the declared surplus land, in the hands of the State/allottee,
would forever remain virtually insecure.

    The Court has to construe the statutory provision in a way
which makes the provisions workable, advancing the purpose
and object of enactment of the statute.                               G

      In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion
that the Revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at belated
stage for the reason that the order passed in Revision under
Section 34 of the Act, 1976, is a judicial order. What should         H
    494      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   be reasonable time, would depend upon the facts and
    circumstances of each case.

        24. If some person has taken a relief from the Court by
  filing a Writ Petition immediately after the cause of action had
B arisen, petitioners cannot take the benefit thereof resorting to
  legal proceedings belatedly. They cannot take any benefit
  thereof at such a belated stage for the reason that they cannot
  be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the
  behest of some diligent person ..

C       25. In State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors.,
  (1996) 6 sec 267, this Court rejected the contention that a
  petition should be considered ignoring the delay and-.Taches,
  on the ground that the petitioner therein filed the petition just
  after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a
D similar case, as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation
  for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is
  wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring
  delay .and laches.

E       26. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in
    Jagdish Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC
    2366, observing as under:-

          "Suffice it to state that appellants may be sleeping over
          their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had
F         impetus from Veerpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ·
          ratio .......... desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the
          seniority, held by them in various cadre ....... are not
          amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The
          High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition
G         on the ground of delay as well."

        27. In Mis. Rup Diamonds & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
  Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674, this Court considered a case where
  petitioner wanted to get relief on the basis of the judgment of
H this Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires.
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                       495
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches    A
observing as under:-

    "There is one more ground which basically sets the present
    case apart. Petitioners are. re-agitating claims which they
    have not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not
                                                                     8
    vigilant but were content to be dormant and clo~e to sit on
    the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided."

     28. However, it will be a different case altogether, where          •
the law, under which an order has been passed, is declared
ultra vires/unconstitutional and the order, thus, passed is          C
rendered a nullity. The party may ask for appropriate relief as
property had been acquired under the law, later so declared
void. [See Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. Vs. Kashinath Janardhan
Trade & Anr., AIR 1983 SC 643; and Mis. Rup Diamonds
~upra~.                                                              D

     29. Be that as it may, the law laid down by this Court in
Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra) has not been approved by
this Court in subsequent Judgment i.e. N. Audikesava Reddy
(supra), wherein it has clearly been held as under :-
                                                                     E
    "The observations that the authorities by their subsequent
    action after 17th February, 1976 cannot alter or introduce
    the master plan which has the effect of increasing the area
    of excess vacant land do not represent the correct view of
    law. The aforesaid explanation to Section 6(1), inter alia, F
    provides that where any land, not being vacant land,
    situated in a State in which this Act is in force has becomes ·
    vacant land by any reason whatsoever, the date on which
    such land becomes vacant land would be the date of the
    commencement of the Act as regards such land.                   G

     Development and town planning are ongoing processes
     and they go on changing from time to time depending upon
     the local needs. That apart, the definition of the "master
     plan" in Section 2(h) is very significant. It reads as under:
                                                                     H
    496      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A                "2(h) 'master plan', in relation to an area within an
                 urban agglomeration or any part thereof, means the
                 plan (by whatever name called) prepared under any
                 law for the time being in force or in pursuance of
                 an order made by the State Government for the
B                development of such area or part thereof and
                 providing for the stages by which such development
                 shall be carried out."

          The above provision, inter alia, contemplates the master
          plan prepared under any law for the time being in force for
c         development of an area. The plan shall also provide for the
          stages by which such development shall be carried out. It
          is evident from the aforesaid definition of master plan that
          it takes in view any plan prepared even subsequent to the
          coming into force of the Act. Further, the explanation to
D         Section 6(1 ), as noticed above, very significantly provides
          that every person holding vacant land in excess of the
          ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act shall file a
          statement before the competent authority and "the
          commencement of the Act" under clause (2) would be
E         when the land becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever.
          Therefore, the date of commencement of the Act in a case
          where the land, which was not vacant earlier, would be the
          date on which such land becomes vacant land. It, thus,
          contemplates a situation of land, not being vacant,
F         becoming vacant due to preparation of a master plan
          subsequent to 17th February, 1976. Further, the provisions
          of the Act require filing of a statement under Sections 6 7
           15 and 16 from time to time as and when land acquires
          the character of a vacant land. Obligation to file statement
G          under the Act arises when a person comes to hold any
          vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, which date
           necessarily may not be 17th February, 1976. It would all
          depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

          Accordingly, we hold that the master plan prepared as per
H
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE                         497
 MUNICIPAL.TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    law in force even subsequent to enforcement of the Act             A
    is to be taken into consideration to determine whether a
    particular piece of land is vacant land or not and, to this
    extent, Atia Begum is not correctly decided." (Emphasis
    added)
                                                                       B
      30. In view of the above, there is no justification for this
Court to enforce the law laid down in Atia Mohammadi Begum
(supra), which has subsequently been held not to be valid law.
Submission made by Sh. Ganguly, that the initial proceedings
instituted against the appellant were a nullity as the land could      C
not be covered under the Act, 1976, remains preposterous.

     31. Undoubtedly, the Act, 1976, stood repealed by the Act
1999. However, it has no bearing on this case for the reason
that proceeding pending in any Court relating to the Act, 1976,
stood abated, provided the possession of the land had not              D
been taken from the owner. Therefore, in a case, where the
possession has been taken, the repeal of the Act would not
confer any benefit on the owner of the land. [Vide Pt. Madan
Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U. P. &
Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 325; Ghasitey Lal Sahu & Anr. Vs.                   E
Competent Authority, (2004) 13 SCC 452; and Mukarram Ali
Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 90].

     32. From the above, the following factual situation emerges:

             (I)     The land was declared surplus under the Act,      F
                     1976, and acquired in 1979.

             (II)    Possession of the land was taken in 1979 by
                     the State of Maharashtra and it was handed
                     over to PMT for construction of the residential   G
                     quarters for the staff.

             (Ill)   Appellant has not stated anywhere in the
                     pleadings as to whether any amount/
                     compensation as provided under the Act,
                                                                       H
    498      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A                       1976, had been received/accepted by her.

                  (IV) Appellant, for the reason best known to her,
                        did not file appeal before the Land Tribunal,
                        though Act, 1976 provides for two appeals.
B                (V)    Appellant woke up from deep-slumber only
                        after five years of the judgment of this Court
                        in Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra) and
                        filed revision under Section 34 of the Act,
                        1976, in 1998.
c
                 (VI)   The State Government allowed the revision
                        without taking into consideration the point of
                        delay; rather it relied upon its own circulars.

                 (VII) The State Government did not consider the
D
                       consequences and particularly the issue of
                       dis-possession of the appellant from the land
                       in dispute in 1978 itself.

                 (VIII) The judgment in Atia Mohammadi Begum
E                       (supra) has been over-ruled by this Court in
                        N. Audikesava Reddy (supra).

        33. Therefore, the law, as exists today, is that the land in
  dispute could be subjected to the provisions of the Act, 1976,
F with effect from 17.5.1976, i.e. the date on which the suit land
  came within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. The Act
  stood repealed in 1999, but the proceedings pending in any
  court would stand abated provided the tenure-holder was in
  possession of the land on the date of the commencement of
  the Act 1999. The High Court has taken note of the fact that
G the appellant's revision had been entertained only on the basis
  r;~ the judgment of this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum
  (supra), which stood over-ruled by the subsequent judgment in
  N. Audikesava Reddy (supra).

H         34. The aforesaid factual position makes it clear that the
 SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDE v. PUNE 499
 MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever as per the law,   A
as it exists today. The land once vested in the State cannot be
divested. Once the land is vested in the State it has a right to
change the user. The appellant cannot be heard raising
grievance on either of these issues.
                                                                      B
     35. Thus, in view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

D.G.                                          Appeal dismissed.