IMPORTANT POINT
When respondents had applied for "no objection" certificate from the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1960 the High Court should not have directed Hyderabad Urban Development Authority to pass the lay out plans of respondents without insisting for said "no objection" certificate in writ petition.

Headnote:(i) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Sections 2(h), 2(n) and 2(o)-Definitions of Master Plan, Urban Agglomeration and Urban Land -Section 6(1) Expln.-Applicability of Urban Land (C & R) Act-On appointed date (17-2-1976)-Land was agricultural land-Later (on 3-9-96) land involved herein brought under Urban Agglomeration-Whether UL (C&R) Act applies-Single Judge relying on 1993 (2) SSC 546 held No -Upheld by DB in appeal-Whether correct? (No, as relied decision was partly overruled in (2002) 1 SCC 227 (See Paras 5 and 6)
       Held : In that view of the matter, we feel that the Division Bench was not justified in declaring that the lands owned by these respondents were outside the purview of the provisions of the UL(C&R) Act and also further directing HUDA to sanction forthwith the lay-out and the group housing scheme submitted by the respondents. (Para 7)
       (ii) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Applicability of the provisions of Act-The land was originally classified as agricultural land-Respondents purchased it and converted into residential purpose after paying requisite development charges -Respondents thereafter filed applications before Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for sanction of lay out plan-It insisted for clearance certificate from the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the UL (C & R) Act-Respondents applied-But considering Act was not applicable, approached High Court in writ-High Court directed HUDA to pass the lay out plan without insisting for "No objection" under the Act-Whether correct? (No)-Appeal allowed-Suitable directions issued to Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority.
       Held : When the applications were pending before the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, the High Court should have directed the authority to take an appropriate decision. When a statutory authority is vested with power to determine the question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act, it is ordinarily desirable to leave the question to be decided by such authority. The aggrieved party can file appeal against the decision within the framework provided under the Statute and the ultimate decision also could be challenged under judicial review, if permitted in law. Instead of undergoing the normal procedure, the respondents herein directly approached the High Court for the reliefs sought for by them. (Para 8)
       Held thereafter : After due regard to the various provisions contained in the relevant enactments, we do not think that this is a case where the High Court should have directed HUDA to pass the lay-out plans without insisting for "no objection" certificate from the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority. (Para 9)
       But then held : We allow the Civil Appeal and direct that the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority shall take a decision in the matter at the earliest, i.e., within a period of three months from this date. The parties would be at liberty to file any additional application or documents before the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority to substantiate their contentions. We make it abundantly clear that whatever has been stated by us regarding the applicability of the UL (C&R) Act is only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and it shall not have any persuasive effect on the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority and he shall take an independent decision uninfluenced by such observations. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-This appeal is preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 968 of 1998. By the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5929/97 was confirmed. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondents praying that the lands owned by the respondents were outside the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter being referred as "UL (C&R) Act") and that the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter being referred as "HUDA") be directed to sanction the lay-out and group housing scheme submitted by the respondents, without insisting for clearance certificate from the competent authority under the UL (C&R) Act. The Writ Petition was allowed and the State unsuccessfully challenged the judgment therein, in the Writ Appeal.

2. The respondents herein purchased an extent of 10 guntas of land each in Survey No. 79 of Madapur village by separate registered sale deeds in the year 1995. These lands originally belonged to one Agaiah Dhanger and his family who owned 96 acres of land in Survey No. 79 of Madapur village. The original land owner Agaiah Dhanger was served with a notice under Section 6(2) of the Act alleging that the land owned by him came within the purview of the UL (C&R) Act. He did not respond to the notice by filing a statement in Form-1, as contemplated under Section 6(1) of the UL (C&R) Act. It seems that the original landlord thereafter sold these properties to the respondents herein. The land was originally classified as agricultural land and the respondents after purchasing the property filed application for converting the same for residential purpose and the Government by G.O.Ms. No. 467 M.A. dated 3.9.1996 granted permission to convert the same for residential purposes by collecting the requisite fee towards development charges. The respondents thereafter filed application before the HUDA for sanction of lay-out. HUDA as well as the District Registrar insisted for clearance certificate from the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the UL (C&R) Act, but the respondents alleged that individually they were owning 1000 square meters and even if it comes under the purview of the UL (C&R) Act, it is within the prescribed ceiling limit. The respondents approached the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, but no clearance certificate was issued by the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority and thereafter they filed the Writ Petition.

3. The lands in Survey No. 79 including other Sy. Nos. covering an extent of 96 acres in Madapur village formed part of Moosapet Gram Panchayat. It is contended by the appellants that village Madapur formed part of Moosapet Gram Panchayat which is included in Col. 2 of Schedule-I of UL(C&R) Act, 1976 and according to Section 2(n) at Para (A)(I) of the UL(C&R) Act, it formed part of the Urban Agglomeration specified in Col.2 of Schedule-I of the UL (C&R) Act and the appellants contended that as the land was included within the Urban Agglomeration, any transaction without clearance as required under Section 5(3) read with Section 28(a) of the UL(C&R) Act was invalid. The respondents, on the other hand, contended before the learned Single Judge that at the time of purchase, the land in question was an agricultural land and on the date of purchase effected by the respondents, there was no legal restriction for the transfer of agricultural land situated in the peripheral area. According to the respondents, the land in question was neither an urban land nor a vacant land and the provisions of the UL(C&R) Act, 1976 do not apply. The contention of the respondents was that on the appointed day, i.e., 28-1-1976, the lands held by the vendors were agricultural lands and it was not covered by any master plan and the extension of the master plan by way of amendment to a particular are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 483

Cases Referred (2)