Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.
State of U.P. and others, etc, etc., Appellants
Versus
L.J. Johnson and another, etc. etc., Respondents.
C. A. Nos. 2005 of 1982, 995, 1021-27, of 1980, 2927-28 of 1981 and 2006-07 etc. of 1982 and S. L. P. (Civil) Nos. 2027 etc. of 1979, 112 etc. of 1980, 720 etc. of 1981 and 319-20 etc. etc. of 1982, D/- 8-9-1983.
Wedded to the ideal of achieving a socialistic pattern of State and building up an egalitarian society as mandated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and incorporated in the directive principles contained in Part IV, which are indeed the heart and soul of the Constitution the Central Government brought forth the present legislation called the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of 1976). To avoid anomalies and controversies, inequalities and inconsistencies, the Central Government obtained the consent of the State Governments so as to pass a central law which would apply equally to all the States. The Act applies to the States and Union Territories and contains a schedule (Schedule I) in which the ceiling of urban areas has been mentioned and which differs from area to area in various States and Union Territories to which the Act applies. [Para 1
The opening words of the preamble, viz., "An Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations•' clearly indicate that the pith and substance of the Act is that a ceiling should be imposed on vacant lands situated in urban areas which mayor may not have buildings constructed thereon. Side by side the other dominant object to be achieved seems to be to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons so as to checkmate speculation and profiteering therein on the one hand and to bring about an equitable distribution of land amongst the urban population. The second clause of the preamble merely repeats and stresses what is contained in the opening part. [Para 6
Analysing, therefore, the real object which the Act seeks to achieve, the provisions have to be construed against the background of two important considerations:
(1) that the vacant land must be situated in an urban rather than a rural area, and
(2) that even those portions of urban land which contain buildings, substantial relief should be given to the owner for the beneficial enjoyment of the property left with him so that the Act may not be dubbed as being of a confiscatory nature. - [Para 7
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Preamble - provisions are constitutional.
The constitutionality of the Act has been upheld by a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in (1979) 3 SCR 802. [Para 2
(3) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Ss.4, 3, 2(c) & 2(g) - meaning of phrases 'appurtenant to' and 'other land occupied by the building'- 'appurtenant' to a building should be integral part of that building-calculation of surplus - surplus how to be determined when a person holds several plots.
The plain language in which sub section (9) of sec. 4 has been expressed clearly shows that when the Legislature used the word 'appurtenant' it meant to qualify the land which was occupied by the building. The words 'appurtenant thereto' qualify the building which precedes the land. The expression 'appurtenant' shows that the Legislature intended that in taking into consideration the land, it must be the land not contiguous or close to the. building but the very land on which the building stands. Similarly, the words 'other land occupied by the building' also lead to the same conclusion, viz., that the other land will not be land in some other plot but refers only to the very land a portion of which is occupied by the building. [Para 18
Taking the legal and dictionary meaning of the word 'appurtenant' or 'appurtenances' the inescapable conclusion is that the words 'either other land or appurtenances' are meant to indicate that the land in question should form an integral part of the main land containing the building in question. [Para 23
In the ultimate analysis the position is quite clear that section 4(9) contemplates that if a person holds vacant land as also other portion of land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit, the extent of land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land. This sub-section has to be read in conjunction with section 2(q) (ii) and (iii). A combined reading of these two statutory provisions would lead to the irresistible inference that in cases which fall within the third category mentioned above, the -
(1) total area of the land of a landholder is first to be determined and if the total area, built or unbuilt, falls below 2000 sq. metres in category D areas, there would be no question of any excess land.
(2) Where, however, there is a building and a dwelling unit then the area beneath the building and the dwelling unit would have to be excluded while computing the ceiling. Further, if there are any bye - laws requiring a portion of the land to be kept vacant, the land holder would be allowed to set apart the said land to the maximum extent of 500 sq. metres. He would also be allowed to retain an additional area of 500 Sq. metres for the beneficial use of the building so that he may enjoy the use of a little compound also for various purposes. [Para 24
After excluding these items if the land falls below the ceiling limit there would be no question of excess but if there is excess that is beyond the ceiling limit, the same would have to be taken over by the Government. [Para 25
Where, however, it is found that any person holds vacant land in two or more categories of urban agglomerations specified in Schedule I, the computation and determination of ceiling area is to be done in accordance with the formula laid down in clauses (a) to (d) of section 4(1) of the Act. [Para 31
Where a person has several plots, some completely vacant and some partly built and partly vacant, a question may arise as to how the computation of the ceiling area is to be made in such cases. This presents no difficulty in view of what we have fully discussed in our judgment because it is manifest that the Legislature intended to leave with the landholder only the area of 2000 sq. metres in category D area of the various ceiling areas mentioned in different categories or section 4 (1) of the Act. It is manifest that in such cases the competent authority will have to total the entire area of the lands in various places, completely vacant or partly built and partly vacant and permit the landholder to retain 2000 sq. metres or less as provided in clauses (a) to (d) of section 4(1) and give the landholder the option (as provided under section 6) to select the area which he desires to retain provided that does not exceed the ceiling limit. 1980 JLJ 673 approved. [Para 34
(4) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - S.4.(a) - beneficial statue - mode of construction.
It is well settled that the language of a beneficial statute must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and advance its object. [Para 23
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J.:- Wedded to the ideal of achieving a socialist pattern of State and building up an egalitarian society as mandated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and incorporated hi the directive principles contained in Part IV, which are indeed the heart and soul of the Constitution as held by this Court on several occasions, the Central Government brought forth the present legislation called the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 9 No. 33 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). To avoid anomalies and controversies, inequalities and inconsistencies, the Central Government obtained the consent of the State Governments so as to pass a central law which would apply equally to all the States. The Act applies to the States and Union Territories and contains a schedule (Schedule I) in which the ceiling of urban areas has been mentioned and which differs from area to area in various States and Union territories to which the Act applies.
2. In the first phase at the hearing of the appeals, the constitutional validity of the Act was challenged but the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the Act in the case of Union of India v. V. B. Choudhary (1979) 3 SCR 802. It is therefore manifest that the challenge to the Act no longer survives.
3. The Act was sought to be implemented by the States which empowered the competent authority to determine with the ceiling area in accordance provisions of the Act and take over the excess land. In due fairness to the citizens, the Act provides an appeal to a judicial authority (District Judge) to examine the correctness of the decision of the competent authority.
4. In the instant case the matter has travelled right from the competent authority to the High Court and the case has been placed before us for judging the correctness of the grounds taken by the High Court in determining the excess area of lands which come within the ambit of the ceiling fixed by the Act. We propose to decide all the 200 and odd appeals and the special leave petitions by one common judgment as the question of law relating to the inter-pretation of the principles contained in the various sections of the Act to determine the ceiling area is more or less common to all the appeals.
5. Before we proceed to detail the relevant provisions of the Act, we would like to point out the aims and objects of the Act in the light of which the pivotal provisions have to be interpreted. The aims and objects are contained in the Preamble of the Act, the relevant portions of which may be extracted thus:
"An Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of building on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to sub-serve the common good.
WHEREAS it is a expedient to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land, in urban agglomerations to sub-serve the common good."
6. The opening words of the preamble, viz., "An Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations" clearly indicate that the pith and substance of the Act is that a ceiling should be imposed on vacant lands situated in urban areas which may or may not have buildings constructed thereon. Side by side the other dominant object to be achieved seems to be to prevent the concent
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
