Back
2003(5) Supreme 580
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. -Appellants
versus
B.E. Billimoria & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10461 of 1983
Decided on 14-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate, Mukesh K. Giri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : T.R. Andhyarujina, V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocates, Pallav Shishodia, Syed Naqvi, Aziza Abdul Latif Khatri and Birender Chaudhary, Advocates.
Per Majority Opinon
Held : What is important to note here is that for the applicability of Sub-section (8) it is necessary that a person should have been allotted a vacant land by a housing co-operative society. Similarly, to come within the purview of Sub-section (9) the person must hold vacant land and also any other land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit. The meaning of the expression "any other land on which there is a building" has been given in the Explanation to Section 4 and this shows that the person must either own the land and the building or own the land and possess the building or possess the land and the building or possess the land but own the building. Therefore, the ownership or possession of the land over which the building stands is a necessary condition for applicability of anyone of the Sub-sections of Section 4. The respondents have merely been allotted flats in a building owned by a co-operative society. There is absolutely no material on record to show that they are either owners of any land or they are in possession of any land. It is the housing co-operative society which is the owner of the land over which the building has been constructed and the respondents are merely allottees of one of the flats in the building. Therefore they cannot be held to be either owners of any land or in possession of any land and consequently Sub-section (8) or (9) of Section 4 would not apply. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority that the area of the flats in Bombay had to be clubbed with the vacant land held by the respondents in Pune was patently wrong and the High Court has rightly set aside the same. (Para 7)
Per S.B. Sinha, J. (Concurring Opinion)
In view of our discussions aforementioned, it must be held that -
(1) that the respondents having independent title to the property in question, are entitled to the two separate units under the said Act;
(2) despite the fact that no construction had been raised on appointed day, they are entitled to the benefit under sub-clause (i) of clause (q) of sub-section (2) of the Act; and
(3) for the purpose of determination of ceiling limit, the area of the flats belonging to the respondents in Bombay would not be taken into consideration. I, thus, agree with the conclusion arrived by the High Court. (Para 30)
(ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Statutory definitions to be read subject to qualification variously expressed in interpretation clause-Definition of vacant land in Section 2, Urban Land Ceiling Act-Exclusionary clauses must be interpreted liberally-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976-Section 2(q).
Per S.B. Sinha, J.
Held : It is trite that when a statutory enactment defines its terms, the same should govern what is proposed, authorised or done under or by reference to that enactment. [See Wyre Forest District Council vs. Secretary for State for the Environment [1990 (1) All E.R. 780 at 785]. It is also trite that all statutory definitions have to be read subject to the qualification variously expressed in the interpretation clause which created them particularly when the definition is exhaustive. The only exception to the aforementioned rule would be where there exist provisions, the meaning therefor is required to be determined in the context in which the word has been used. The words vacant land have been defined as land subject to certain exception. Those exclusionary clauses must be interpreted liberally. The charging section is Section 3 which provides that persons shall not be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territory to which it applies. Ceiling limit has been provided in terms of Section 4 but the same is subject to other provisions contained therein. The scheme of the Act in general and the purport and object thereof in particular do not lead to a conclusion that what has been excluded from the definition of vacant land should be included for another purpose. There does not exist any reason as to why the plain and unequivocal meaning cannot be given to the said definition. (Paras 23 to 26)
JUDGMENT
Majority Opinion
G.P. Mathur, J. (On behalf of himself and V.N. Khare, CJI)-The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 31.1.1983 of High Court of Bombay by which the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 was allowed and the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short the Act ) were set aside and it was declared that the respondents do not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit of Pune Agglomeration. The notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Act was also set aside.
2. B.E. Billimoria (respondent No. 1) and Laxmidas Kalyanji Kapadia (respondent No.2) together owned a plot bearing CTS No.82, Koregaon Park, Pune having an area of 5428.09 sq. meters. In the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act respondent No.1 disclosed that besides above he owned a flat having an area of 297.28 sq. meter in a building owned by a co-operative housing society in Bombay. Respondent no.2 disclosed that besides CTS No.82, Koregaon Park, Pune he owned a residential flat having an area of 111.11 sq. meters in a building owned by a co-operative society in Bombay. His wife was also in possession of a part of an industrial building and the area of the same was 235.78 sq. meters. The Competent Authority held that respondent No.1 owned half of CTS No.82, Koregaon Park, Pune the area whereof came to 2714.05 sq. meters. He further held that the flat being in Bombay which is in Category A of Schedule I of the Act, for calculating the area thereof in terms of Category B in which Pune is situate, the area had to be doubled and therefore the area of the flat occupied by him in Bombay should be taken to be 594.56 sq. meters. It was thus held that respondent No.1 held 3308.61 sq. meters of land and as the ceiling limit in Pune was 1,000 sq. meters, he was holding 2308.61 meters of excess land. With regard to respondent No.1 the area of the flat held in Bombay was doubled to 222.22 sq. meters and after adding the area of the part of the industrial building in possession of his wife, namely, 235.78 sq. meters and 2714.05 sq. meters in CTS No. 82, Koregaon Park, Pune, he was held to be holding 3172.05 sq. meters of land. The excess area held by respondent No. 2 was thus determined as 2172.05 sq. meters. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the Competent Authority the respondents preferred appeals which were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 20.1.1979 by the Appellate Authority, Pune and the findings recorded by the Competent Authority were affirmed.
3. Thereafter the respondents preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court held that each of the respondents should be taken to be holding an area of 2714.07 sq. meters in CTS No.82 Koregaon Park, Pune. The building regulations in the aforesaid area did not permit construction on more than one-third of the total area of the plot and as such construction was not possible on an area of 1809 sq. meters and therefore the same could not be treated as "vacant land" within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act. The High Court further held that the area of the flats owned by the respondents in Bombay could not be taken into consideration as no vacant land had been allotted to them by the co-operative society. The "vacant land" held by each of the respondents thus came to 905 sq. meters which was well within the ceiling limits of 1000 sq. meters for Pune. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority were set aside and it was declared that the respondents do not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit of Pune agglomeration.
4. Shri S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that Section 3 of the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
