(1) THESE two appeals are filed on a certificate granted by the High court of Calcutta under Articles 133 and 134-A of the Constitution, certifying that the question whether a vacant land held by a bank under a private trust is entitled to exemption under Section 19 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for short the Act involved in the cases, needs to be decided by this Court.

(2) FACTS in Civil No. 3573 of 1988 are : That certain David Platt Sunderdale (to be called David) held and possessed property No. 350, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Tollygunge, Calcutta comprised a total extent of 4208.04 square metres. The competent authorities under the Act found that extent to be in excess of ceiling area by 1933.02 square metres. State Bank was an executor/trustee under a will of David for that property, was issued a notice by the competent authorities on 20/5/1981 calling for the filing of a draft statement under Section 8(1 of the Act. But, the State Bank filed an application before the competent authority claiming exemption of the property under Section 19(1(iv) and Section 20 of the Act. However, when that application was rejected and the order of rejection was upheld by Higher Forums under the Act, the same were impugned in a writ petition filed by the State Bank in the High court of Calcutta. That writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of that High court by his order dated 21/3/1986 because of his view that the State Bank was entitled to exemption under Section 19 of the Act. The appeal, preferred against that order of learned Single Judge was allowed by the division bench of the same court and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment of the division bench made in appeal has given rise to Civil No. 3573 of 1988 filed by the State Bank by obtaining a certificate therefor from High court.

(3) FACTS in Civil No. 3574 of 1988 are : Certain Ajit Kumar Banerjee (to be called Banerjee) owned a property bearing No. 23A/102-H, Diamond Harbour Road of a total area of 4208.0 square metres. The competent authority under the Act when found that the vacant land of the property exceeded the permitted ceiling area, it issued a notice under Section 8(1 of the Act, calling upon the State Bank which was an executor/trustee in respect of that property under a will of Banerjee, to file draft statement. But the State Bank made an application claiming exemption under Section 19(l)(iv) and Section 20 of the Act. However, when that application was rejected by the competent authority, the order of rejection was challenged by the State Bank in a writ petition filed in the High court. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High court finding that the State Bank since held the lands as a trustee, exemption in Section 19(l)(iv) of the Act was attracted. But appeal No. 375 of 1986 filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge, were allowed by the division bench of the High court by its judgment dated 12/4/1988. The division bench found that the lands held by the Bank for the benefit of either a residuary legatee or for beneficiaries - certain private individuals, did not attract the exemption. Therefore, the State Bank, the trustee under private trust, was not entitled to claim exemption in respect of vacant lands of the Trust under Section 19(l)(iv), inasmuch as acceptance of such claim, could lead to ridiculous and anomalous situation. That judgment of the division bench of the High court rendered in appeal of the State has given rise to Civil No. 3574 of 1988 filed by State Bank by obtaining a certificate therefor from the High court.

(4) DR Shankar Ghosh, the learned Senior Counsel for the common appellant, the State Bank, contended that Section 19, which envisages exemption of the public properties held by the public institutions, private properties held by the public institutions and private properties held for public purposes also envisages exemption o