Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.B.MAZUMDAR, V.BHASKARA RAO
Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
P.Ramanamma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-04-92
URBAN LAND CEILING ACT - REJECTION OF PERMISSION UNDER SEC. 26 - ACT SECTIONS 5 (3), 10 (4), 26, 42 - INTERPRETATION - COMPETENT AUTHORITY'S POWER TO REJECT PERMISSION - OVERRIDING EFFECT OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a member of a cooperative society, purchased a plot from the society, which had acquired the land through a sale deed executed by the original owner, Fasahatulla. The petitioner applied for permission under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act) to sell the plot to a third party. The competent authority rejected the application on the ground that the land was covered by a statement filed under Section 6 of the Act by Fasahatulla, who was found to be a surplus vacant land-holder. The petitioner challenged the rejection order, arguing that the competent authority had no power to reject the permission under Section 26.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the competent authority had the power to reject the permission under Section 26 in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court noted that Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) of the Act prohibited the transfer of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and that the sale of the land to the society, even though pursuant to a decree of the civil court, was not free from cloud due to the overriding effect of the Act under Section 42. The court also held that Section 26 must be read along with Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4), and that in a case covered by either of those provisions, the rejection of permission under Section 26 could not be held to be arbitrary, illegal, or infirm.
Issues: Whether the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has the power to reject the permission sought for under Section 26 of the Act on the ground that the land in question, for which the permission is sought, is part of the vacant land covered by the proceedings resultant of the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the competent authority has the power to reject the permission under Section 26 in cases where the transfer of the land is prohibited under Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) of the Act. The court reasoned that Section 26 must be read along with Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4), and that in such cases, the rejection of permission under Section 26 cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal, or infirm. The court also noted that the overriding effect of the Act under Section 42 meant that the sale of the land to the society, even though pursuant to a decree of the civil court, was not free from cloud.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single judge quashing the impugned order rejecting permission under Section 26. The court held that the competent authority had the power to reject the permission in the facts and circumstances of the case.
( 1 ) THIS writ appeal filed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act challenges the order of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition and issuing a mandamus directing the appellants to consider grant of permit to the writ petitioner under Sec. 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) after quashing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the writ petitioner therefor.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts that gave rise to the present proceedings in brief are : The writ petitioner was a member of Navodaya Co-operative House Building society Limited, Hyderabad. The Society having entered into an agreement of sale with one Fasahatulla in respect of an extent of Ac. 11-11 guntas in s. Nos. 97/1,100 and 101 at Yallareddyguda, Golconda taluk, Hyderabad, filed a suit for specific performance of that agreement and pursuant to the decree obtained therein, had a registered sale-deed dated 26-8-1984 executed in its favour. In its turn, the Society executed a sale-deed in respect of plot No2 measuring an extent of 900 sq. yards, having had that land divided into plots, in favour of the petitioner on 30th April, 1985. Thereafter, the writ petitioner wanted to sell the plot to a third party and for that purpose, made an application on 14-7-1988 to the 1st appellant under Sec. 26 of the Act for issue of necessary permission. That application was rejected, through the impugned order, on the ground that it could not be considered for want of previous clearance. The appellant herein filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that the lands in question in S. Nos. 97/1,100 and 101 were covered by the statement filed in Form i under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act by Fasahatullah, the vendor to the Society, and after inquiry the declarant-Fasahatullah, was found to be surplus vacant land-holder to an extent of 51,205. 67 sq. metres as per the draft statement dated 19-5-1982 prepared under Sec. 8 (1), and also finally as per orders made on 19-6-1982 under sec. 8 (4) of the Act. It is further stated, as per Section 5 (3) no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit before commencement of the Act shall transfer such land, or a portion thereof, and any such transfer made in contravention thereof shall be deemed to be null and void. Further according to Sec. 42 of the Act, any decree or order will have no effect upon the provisions of the Act. Hence, according to the Counter filed the decee of the civil Court in pursuance of which the sale-deed dated 26-8-1984 came to be registered by the sub-Registrar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, is not valid and consequently no valid title is vested in the Society by virtue of the registered sale-deed and much less in the subsequent purchaser the writ petitioner, from the Society. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that under Sec. 26 of the Act, the authority has only to consider whether it wants to purchase the land and if not to issue the permission. Aggreived of this order the appeal is brought in.
( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader for the appellants contended that the plot in question sought to be sold is a portion of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit by the vendor Fasahatulla as per orders passed under Sec. 8 (4) of the Act, that under Sec. 5 (3) of the Act the said Fasahatulla is forbidden from transferring the vacant land or a portion thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until a notification regarding the excess vacant 1and held by him has been published under Sec. 10 (1) and any contravention thereof would result in rendering such transfer to be null and void. Further as per Sec10 (4) the prohibition is continued until the proceedings crossed the stage covered by sec. 10 (3) and in the interregnum commencing from the stage of proceedings f rom Sec. 10 (1) to 10 (3),
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
