( 1 ) IN order to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of a few individuals, the Legislative, in its wisdom thought it prudent to introduce in the statute book the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. From the statement of objects and reasons , it appears that the Act envisages prevention of speculation and profiteering in the vacant land in urban agglomeration. Admittedly, the land is scarce and there is, in fact, a tremendous pressure in that regard, specially in urban areas. This legislation of 1976 is, however, a socialistic piece of legislation and has been introduced to subserve the common social aim and objective not to allow acquisition of excess land in the urban area. The Legislature felt the necessity of having such a legislation in order to subserve out constitutional goal.

( 2 ) THE object of the legislation being beneficial, in our view, the endeavour of the Law-Courts also should be to give effect to the intention of the legislation as far as practicable rather than thwart it since the Legislature is in a better position to appreciate the need of the society and the Law-Courts also exist for lhe society. In the event, however, the Law-Courts do not live up to the expectation of the society, the Law-Courts will lose its efficacy and the entire democratic icrvour of our Constitution will be lost and it is in this perspective that this matter ought to be dealt with by the Law-Courts.

( 3 ) ON the factual score, it appears that one Smt. Indira Rai was having a substantial immovable property within the Hyderabad urban agglomeration by reason of which, after the commencement of the Act, a statement under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1976 was filed before the Special Officer and Competent Authority on 14/09/1976, wherein there has been a declaration of vacant land of 14,863. 55 square metres in Survey No. 22 of Somajiguda, Hyderabad District. The Special Officer in his order did allow the declarant an area of 1000 square metres and determined the 13,863. 55 square metres of vacant land as the surplus land being held by her. The fectual score further depicts that Smt. Indira Rai being aggrieved by the order of the Special Officer did file an appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Commissioner of Land Reforms and the appellate authority relying on the information furnished by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority as to the land use classification of the vacant land in question did in fat set aside the order impugned in the appeal and directed the Special Officer and Competent Authority to get the land surveyed. The relevant extract of the order of the appellate authority is set out herein below:"2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the land in question can be treated as vacant land within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Act. " 2 ". . . . . . . . . . . . . It is not clear from the extract showing the proposed land use of Zone-IV whether the entire extent in Sy. No. 22 is reserved for recreation purpose. The Plan shows a major portion marked in green lies in the recreation zone and a small portion in the residential zone. It is not clear from the extract the extent of area lying in recreation zone and the extent lying in residential zone. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, should get it surveyed and exclude from the compulation of the holding of the appellant the extent of land lying in the recreation zone and land reserved for the road. With these observations, the appeal is remitted to the Special Officer and Competent Authority for recomputation of the holding" (emphasis supplied)Upon such remand of the matter, the contextual facts depict that the Special Officer did get the land measured and recomputed the total area with a finding that only 914. 98 square metres can be termed to be vacant land and since the same docs not fall within the ambit of the Ceiling Act, the Special Officer held that the declarant is not a surplus land holder, subject to conditi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document