Back
1991 Supreme(Pat) 517
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and R.N.Sahay JJ.
Arun Nath Shahdeo
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1237 of 1986 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 19, 1991
Headnote:Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1876-Scope and object-object of the Act is to prevent concentration of urban land under the ceiling of a few persons-such a purpose would be defeated if any other interpretation is adopted. (Para 57)
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 sec. 2 (f), 2(i), 2 (h), 3, 4 (7)-Object of -property acquired by the father of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were born after the death of their grand father-the property was thus his self acquired property and the entire property belonged to the petitioner no. l alone, the question of his holding the properties for the benefit of his minor sons did not arise - assuming the property was all ancestral property, evidently by reason of deed of partition there was severance in the said joint family and as such on the date when the Act came into force no undivided family existed- the petitioners, therefore can not take advantage of sub-sec. (7) of sec. 4-to hold a property in the context of sec. 2 (J) must therefore, mean to have a right to hold the property-a statute has to be interpreted taking into consideration of its legislative intends-the definition of family is an artificial definition-object of the Act is to bring all persons constituting a family within mischief of the provisions of the Act-members of the family may have separate properties for the purpose of sec. 3, one unit has to be allotted to the family - petitioners had rightly been allotted one unit and the contention that an unit has to be allotted to an individual and not to a family can not be accepted as definition of a person includes a family-A1R 1181 LC 234, AIR 1985 SC 571, AIR 1980 SC 2097, AIR 1986 All 178 rel. on, AIR 1990 Cal 185 dist., AIR 1984 Bom. 122, AIR 1983 SC 1303, AIR 1984 Bom. 112, AIR 1991 A.P. 84 AIR 1988 Punjab 48, 1984 (1) All L.R. 690, AIR 1988 SC 220 & AIR 1986 All. 332 ref. (Paras 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 44, 48, 50, 56 & 57)
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, sec. 2 (q)-Land and building-meaning of-land with structures constructed by the military personnel returned to the State for the purposes of acquisition-no notification for acquisition issued by the State-provisions of the section may have to be given restricted meaning that requirement of approval of the appropriate authority is confined to buildings constructed after appointed day-vacant land except those covered under exceptions to the vacant land i.e. covered by buildings and lands appertaining thereto may taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of excess vacant land-AIR 1984 Bom. 12J, 1988 (1) SCC 132, AIR 1983 SC 1303, AIR 1981 M. P. 17, AIR 1988 Del. 60, AIR 1918 Cal. 307, AIR 1979 SC 1415, AIR 1988 SC 1708, 1984 (1) All. L. R. 990, AIR 1991 SC 276, AIR 1961 A.P. 110, 1961 (2) All. E. R. 513, AIR 1990 Raj. 116, AIR 1986 All 332, AIR 1988 Cal 307, 1988 P & H 48, ref. (Paras 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 74 & 76)
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Sec. 4 (4) (a)-transfer made by the land holders before the Act came into force included for computation of ceiling area-any deed of transfer executed prior to the appointed day shall be excluded from consideration for the purpose of computing the Ceiling area. (Paras 58 & 59)
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This application is directed against the order dated 14-12-1985 passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure 6 to this writ application as also the order dated 1-7-1986 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 7 to this writ application.
2. By reason of the aforesaid orders, the respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively in purported exercise of their powers conferred upon them under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the sake of brevity of the Act) held that surplus vacant lands are available at the hands of the petitioners.
3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass and are not much in disputes.
4. The petitioner No. 1 and his two sons constituted a Hindu joint family. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 when the Act came into force were minors. On or about 4-8-1971 the petitioners together with Smt. Kiranbala Shahdeo (since deceased) wife of the petitioner No. 1 and the mother of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 partitioned their properties by metes and bounds, in terms whereof l/4th share of the properties in question was allotted to each of them.
5. The properties in question were the ancestral properties of the petitioners. According to the petitioners consequent upon the said partition, the parties came in exclusive possession of the properties allotted in their share and got their names mutated in the revenue records of the respondent No. 1. The petitioners also assert that late Kiranbala Shahdeo during her life time sold and transferred some portions of R.S. Plot No. 43 to Central Housing Co-operative Society by a registered deed of sale dated 12th May, 1982. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 also through their mother and natural guardian Smt. Kiranbala Shahdeo sold and transferred certain lands within plot No. 43 by virtue of two registered deeds of sale on 12-7-1982 in favour of Smt. Laxmi Sinha and Birendra Kumar Sharma who have also come in possession of the said respective purchased properties, Copies of the aforesaid sale deeds have been annexed with this writ application and marked as Annexures 3 and 3/1.
6. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1,his wife and their two sons also made various transfers to several persons, out of the lands allotted in their respective shares and delivered possession of the transferred properties to the respective purchaser. Allegedly, two deeds of sale executed by the petitioner No. 1. in favour of one Dr. Ram Gopal Bazaz and another in favour of one Sri Anil Kumar Bazaz on 5-2-1984 have also been recognised by the respondent No. 4.
7. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the petitioners and the aforementioned late Kiranbala Shahdeo filed their respective returns before the competent authority which gave rise to initiation of four different proceedings, namely, Urban Land Ceiling Case No. 235 of 1976, 236 of 1976, 238 of 1976 and 239 of 1976. It appears that two of the purchasers from the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Smt. Laxmi Sinha and Birendra Kumar Sharma also filed their respective returns which gave rise to Urban Land Ceiling Case Nos. 234 and 237 of 1976 respectively.
8. In the aforementioned cases a draft statement was published in terms of Sec. 10 of the said Act by amalgamating all the aforementioned urban land ceiling cases, which is contained in Annexure 4 to this writ application. During the pendency of the said case, the aforementioned Kiranbala Shahdeo died on 23-11-1983. The petitioners filed an objection to the aforementioned draft statement on 28th March, 1984 contending inter alia therein:
(a) That the properties being ancestral in the hands of the petitioner No. 1 his sons being petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 would also be entitled to have separate units.
(b) That since at the time of the commencement of the Act there were four persons within the meaning of the provisions of the Act, therefore, a total of our units should have been allotted. Since
