JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.

1. The petitioner booked a small flat with an area of 950 sq. ft. in a multi-storeyed building containing several flats on the excess vacant land belonging to respondent No.3, exempted under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation), Act, 1976 to be constructed by respondent No.4 in survey No. 44, Marenahalli Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South taluk. Under the agreement, the petitioner was to purchase the flat together with 1/48 share in the land on which the building was to be constructed. Under the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 the promoter, namely respondent No.4, is required to convey title and execute documents for the share in land of the flat/apartment. The petitioner took necessary steps for purchase of the flat together with his share of the land on which the multi-storeyed building is constructed. However, the respondent No.4 regretted its inability vide letter dated 20.6.1993 to either execute the conveyance for transfer of the petitioners share of land or to handover possession of the said flat to him because of the order dated 16.6.1993 of the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner was informed that the Karnataka High Court, by the said order, had restrained the State Government from issuing any orders permitting transfer of the excess vacant land and therefore, the respondents were not in a position to comply with the petitioners demand. This order of the Karnataka High Court is based on the decision of this Court in S. Vasudeva/D.P. Sharma v. State of Karnataka and Ors., [1993] 3 SCC 467, which prohibits transfer of any part of the excess vacant land in respect of which exemption is granted under Section 20(1)(b) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The decision in S. Vasudeva being the basis of the impugned action, this writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging this action; and for that reason, correctness of the decision in S. Vasudeva arises for consideration. No other facts are material for deciding the question raised in this writ petition.

2. In S. Vasudeva, a Division Bench comprised of two learned Judges of this Court (P.B. Sawant and N.P. Singh, JJ.) have held "that the provisions of Section 20(l)(b) of the Act do not permit the State Government to give exemption to the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit for the purpose of transferring the same". This is the common conclusion reached by the two learned Judges in their separate opinions. The State Government is applying this decision to all cases of exemption under Section 20 of the Act. The question, therefore, is : Whether this conclusion of restriction on transfer must apply invariably in all cases of exemption granted under Section 20 of the Act?

3. The relevant provisions in the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 may now be referred. Chapter II contains the definitions in Section 2. Chapter III contains Section 3 to 24 with the heading Ceiling on vacant land. Chapter IV contains Sections 25 to 30 under the heading Regulation of Transfer and Use of Urban Property and Chapter V contains the miscellaneous provisions in Sections 31 to 47. The relevant definitions are as under:

"Chapter II. Definitions

2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

xxx

xxx

xxxx

(c) "ceiling limit" means the ceiling limit specified in Section 4 ;

xxx xxx Xxxx

(q) "vacant land" means land, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include, _

(i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated;

(ii) in an area where there are building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on, the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority and the land ap