A tank is not vacant land within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, as construction of a building on a tank is not permissible under the building regulations in force in Calcutta.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, the appellant Sm. Srila Moitra has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge has discharged the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE appellant is admittedly the owner of premises No. 6b, Ironside Road, Calcutta which is within the limits of the Corporation of Calcutta. The land comprised in the said premises measures 1542. 625 Sq. metres consisting of a building covering 233. 500 Sq. metres, a tank measuring 1162. 124 Sq. metres and 147. 0017 Sq. metres of land appertaining to the building. On Sep. 27, 1976, the appellant duly submitted a return under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, herein-after referred to as the Act, before the respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority, Calcutta. On August 19, 1979, the appellant gave a notice to the respondent No. 2 under Section 26 of the Act for transfer of an area of 500 Sq. metres of the said tank by way of sale in favour of Purbarag Samabaya Abasan Ltd. , a Housing Co-operative Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. In reply to the said notice, the respondent No. 2 by his letter dated Oct. 16, 1979 informed the appellant that as she was holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, the notice under Section 26 was not valid and the transfer of the portion of the disputed tank could not be allowed. Being aggrieved by the refusal by the respondent No. 2 to grant to the appellant permission to sell the said portion of the disputed tank on the ground that the tank was vacant land and the appellant was holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit as contained in his said letter dated Oct. 16, 1979 (Annexure 'c' to the writ petition), the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution whereupon the Rule Nisi, out of which this appeal arises, was issued.

( 3 ) AT the hearing of the Rule Nisi, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the disputed tank was not 'vacant land' within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Act and, as such, the appellant was not in possession of any excess vacant land. The learned Judge, however, came to the finding that the tank should be construed as vacant land within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi. Hence this appeal.

( 4 ) THE only question that is involved in, this appeal is whether a tank is a vacant land within the meaning of Section 2 (q) of the Act Before we come to the question, we may refer to the scheme of the Act. The preamble of the Act shows that it is an Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bring about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to sub serve the common good. Section 3 of the Act provides that except as otherwise provided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Section 4 provides for the ceiling limit. Section 10 is a provision for acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit, Under Sec. 26 notice is required to be given before transfer of vacant land. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the Competent Authority. The object of giving a notice