The definition of "vacant land" in section 2(q)(i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, excludes 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.

Headnote:
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 2(Q)(I), 4(8), 4(9), 4(10) - INTERPRETATION - CALCULATION OF VACANT LAND - EXCLUSION OF LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS NOT PERMITTED - INCLUSION OF LAND HELD BY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MEMBER - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who jointly owned a land in Pune, filed statements under section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Ceiling Act). The Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority held that the petitioners were holding excess land and issued a final declaration accordingly. The petitioners challenged the orders before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the authorities below had erred in including the areas of the flats occupied by the petitioners in Bombay while calculating the total area of vacant land held by them. The Court held that only 2/3rd of the land held by each of the petitioners could be used for the construction of a building, and the remaining 1/3rd was not vacant land as per the definition in section 2(q)(i) of the Ceiling Act. The Court also held that the areas of the flats held by the petitioners in co-operative societies could not be added to the area of vacant land held by them, as they did not hold any land allotted to them by such societies.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities below erred in including the areas of the flats occupied by the petitioners in Bombay while calculating the total area of vacant land held by them? 2. Whether the areas of the flats held by the petitioners in co-operative societies could be added to the area of vacant land held by them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the authorities below had erred in including the areas of the flats occupied by the petitioners in Bombay while calculating the total area of vacant land held by them. The Court held that only 2/3rd of the land held by each of the petitioners could be used for the construction of a building, and the remaining 1/3rd was not vacant land as per the definition in section 2(q)(i) of the Ceiling Act. 2. The Court held that the areas of the flats held by the petitioners in co-operative societies could not be added to the area of vacant land held by them, as they did not hold any land allotted to them by such societies.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The orders passed by the Collector and the Appellate Authority, Pune, Urban Agglomeration, Pune, confirming the orders passed by the Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune were set aside. It was declared that neither of the petitioners was holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit of the Pune Agglomeration.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition arises out of the proceedings started under the provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act". The two petitioners together own a land bearing C.T.S. No. 82 and situated at Koregaon Park, Pune. That land measures 542809 sq. metres. Each of the petitioners filed a statement under section 6 of the Ceiling Act. Besides the aforesaid land, which is held by the petitioners jointly, each of the petitioners owns certain other property also. The first petitioner owns a flat in a building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society at Bombay. The area of the flat is 297.28 sq. metres. Bombay being in category A of Schedule 1 of the Act, for calculating the area in terms of category B, in which Pune is situated, the area has to be doubled. Accordingly, the area of the flat occupied by the first petitioner in Bombay should be taken to be 594.56 sq. metres.

2. The second petitioner owns a residential flat in Bombay having an area of 111.11 sq. metres. This flat is also in a building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society. Besides this, his wife is in possession of a part of an industrial building and the area of the same has to be taken as 235.78 sq. metres. Taking all these areas into consideration, the Competent Authority, who is joined as respondent No. 2 in this petition, by a final declaration held that the first petitioner is holding a total area of 3308.61 sq. metres. While doing so, he took into consideration half of the area of 5,28.10 sq. metres situated at Pune. Thus he held the first petitioner to be in possession of 2714.05 sq. metres at Pune. This is correct in view of the law laid down in (Shardaben Mafatlal v. V.N. Karandikar)1, 1982 Maharashtra Law Journal 732. In this case it has been held that if several persons are holding any land as tenants-in-common then even though the land has not been divided by metes and bounds, the share of each person holding as a tenant-in common has to be taken as belonging to him. Since C.T.S. No. 82 is jointly held by the two petitioners as tenants-in-common, each of them must be taken to be holding 2714.05 sq. metres. The Competent Authority added to this share the area of the flat in Bombay, that is 594.66 sq. metres. Thus he arrived at a figure of 3308.61 sq. metres. Since in Pune the ceiling area is 1000 sq. metres the first petitioner was held to be holding excess land to the extent of 2308.61 sq. metres.

3. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, the area in Pune was same as that of the first petitioner, namely 2714.05. Added to this was the total area of the flat held in Bombay, namely 222.22, Again, to this was added on area of 235.78 sq. metres which is the area of the part of the building held by the wife of the second petitioner. Thus total of these three figures comes to 3172.05 sq. metres. Thus the second petitioner held an excess area of 2172.05 sq. metres. The case of the first petitioner was tried by the Competent Authority as Case No. 715-BI-1003 while the case of the second petitioner was tried as Case No. 362-KA-1002. The order in the case of the first petitioner was passed on 19th April, 1978 while the order in the case of the second petitioner was passed on 14th April, 1978. The two petitioners preferred appeals, being Urban Land Ceiling Appeals Nos. 136/78 and 138/78 respectively. Both these were heard and disposed of by the Collector and Appellate Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration by a common judgment and order dated 20th January, 1979. By this judgment and order the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding given by the Competent Authority below him though at some places he made some observations which were meant to correct the reasoning given by the Competent Authority.

4. Both the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority. At the outset it was pointed out to Mr. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document