Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
K.Co-op.Building Socy.Ltd.c - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-18-84
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 10, 19, 20, 25 TO 30, 36 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 256, 257 - EXEMPTION FROM CEILING LIMIT - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are house building co-operative societies, filed writ petitions challenging the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 964 dt. 27-6-1983 issued by the State Government, which directed that all requests for exemption from the land owners shall be rejected under S. 20 (1) (a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the lands shall be taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners contended that the impugned G.O. is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and opposed to the statutory provisions contained in S. 20 (1) of the Act. It was submitted that the provision is intended to remove undue hardship occasioned by the application of the provisions of the Act and a duty is cast on the Government to exercise the power to grant exemption whenever it is considered necessary to further the policy and object of the Act and in public interest. The G.O. directing that all applications shall be rejected it is maintained not only defeats the very purpose of the provisions contained in S. 20 of the Act but is also opposed to the directions issued by the Central Government and contained in their letters dt. 6-1-1977 and 7-5-1980 and the guidelines laid down by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 136 Revenue Dt. 28-1-1981 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Central Government in the aforesaid letters.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned G.O. is violative of Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution and is void. The State Government appears to have acted unmindful of the sanction under Art. 365 for enforcement of the obligations and directions under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution. The Court further held that S. 20 of the Act confers a power coupled with a duty on the part of the State Government and it has to be exercised by the State Government in respect of each case applying its mind as to the purpose for which the land is proposed to be used and such other relevant factors as the circumstances of the case may require. The Government in such cases have to examine whether the house building co-operative society and the landholders have complied with the conditions laid down by the Government of India and dispose of the application for exemption after proper enquiry in accordance with the directions of the Union Government. The impugned order of the State Government that all requests for exemption from the land owners shall be rejected under S. 20 (1) (a) of the Act and the land will be taken by the Government under the provisions of the Act is contrary to the provisions of S. 20 (1) of the Act and the directions of the Union Government and is liable to be quashed and cannot be upheld.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 964 dt. 27-6-1983 issued by the State Government is valid? 2. Whether the State Government has the power to exempt from the ceiling limit any vacant land held by a person under S. 20 of the Act? 3. Whether the Central Government has the authority to issue directions to the State Government for the implementation of the provisions of the Act under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution read with S. 36 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned G.O. is violative of Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution and is void. The State Government appears to have acted unmindful of the sanction under Art. 365 for enforcement of the obligations and directions under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that S. 20 of the Act confers a power coupled with a duty on the part of the State Government and it has to be exercised by the State Government in respect of each case applying its mind as to the purpose for which the land is proposed to be used and such other relevant factors as the circumstances of the case may require. 3. The Court held that the Central Government has the authority to issue directions to the State Government for the implementation of the provisions of the Act under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution read with S. 36 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 964 dt. 27-6-1983 issued by the State Government. The Court directed the State Government to consider the applications filed by the societies and their vendors in accordance with the provisions of S. 20 (1) of the Act and the guidelines laid down by the Central Government for granting exemption under S. 20 (1) of the Act from time to time without reference to the further instructions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 964 dt. 27th June, 1983 that the requests for exemption shall be rejected and the land taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act.
( 1 ) THE true limit of the power of the State Government to exempt from the ceiling limit any vacant land under S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as could be gathered from the objects of the Act and the extent of the authority of the Central Government to issue directions to the State Government for the implementation of the Act under Arts. 256 and 257 of the Constitution read with S. 36 of the Act, are the questions of general interest and considerable importance that are evoked in this batch of writ petitions.
( 2 ) THE Act is a Central enactment and provides for the imposition of ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations. The reason for the enactment is the necessity to exercise social control over the scarce resource of urban land due to the growth of population and increasing urbanisation. The dominant object sought to be achieved by the Act is to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons so as to checkmate speculation and profiteering therein and ensure equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve common good. In order to achieve the said object, provision for the imposition of a ceiling to hold vacant land is made in S. 4 appearing in Chap. III of the Act. S. 5 deals with the transfer of vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit. "vacant land" is defined under S. 2 (q) of the Act. S. 10 provides for the acquisition of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 10 lays down that vacant land declared to be in excess under sub-sec. (1) shall vest absolutely in the State Government with effect from the date of the notification under sub-sec. (3 ). S. 19 of the Act exempts the provisions of the Act to any vacant land held by the Central or State Government, or any local authority or any corporation established by or under a Central or a State Act or any company as defined in S. 617 of the Companies Act, any military, naval or air force institution, any bank or any public or religious trust or any co-operative society or any educational or cultural institution or club etc. The most relevant section in the context is S. 20 of the Act which gives power to the State Government to exempt vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act. Ss. 25 to 30 appearing in Chapter IV of the Act provide for the regulation of transfer and use of urban property, S. 36 is the next relevant section which confers power on the Central Government to give such directions to the State Government as may appear to the Central Govt. to be necessary for implementation of the provisions of the Act.
( 3 ) THE Act came into force on 17th Feb. 1976. With the growth of population and increasing urbanisation housing problem had become acute in urban areas. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the past two decades the State Government encouraged orderly development of urban areas and construction of houses through co-operative housing societies. Therefore, a number of house building co-operative societies had been registered in the State. The main object of these societies was to acquire land, develop it, divide it into plots and allot the same to their members for the construction of houses. The societies had purchased large extents of land from various vendors and entered into agreements of sale by paying huge amounts as advances. Pursuant to the agreements of sale, the house building co-operative societies had been put in possession of the land. After taking over possession, the societies invested huge amounts in developing these lands, preparing lay-outs, getting the lay-outs approved by the local authorities, dividing the land into plots, laying of roads and providing other public amenities for the benefit of the members to whom the plots were allotted. The sale transactions, however, could not be completed after the Act came into force on 1
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
