The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot declare any land referred to in Section 2(q)(ii) or (iii) as excess vacant land.

Headnote:
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 2(Q), 2(G), 4(9), 4(11) - LAND APPURTENANT - VACANT LAND - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - LEASE OF PLOT - CANCELLATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Alokendra Nath Mitter, applied for allotment of a plot of land under the Salt Lake City Extension Scheme. He was offered a plot on certain conditions, including payment of a premium or salami. The petitioner duly deposited the premium and filed an application accepting the terms of the proposed lease. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the plot was ready for delivery of possession and was directed to pay the balance premium. The petitioner complied with the directions and submitted a draft deed of lease for execution. However, the authorities directed the petitioner to submit an attested copy of his return, if any, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act) or to file an affidavit furnishing details of his lands and buildings in urban areas of India. The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he did not hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act. However, the authorities informed the petitioner that he would be holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit after acquiring the plot and that execution of the lease was not possible. The petitioner challenged the order of the authorities by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's existing holding and the plot he proposed to acquire all came within the definition of urban land. The court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of 500 sq. metres. However, the court interpreted Section 4(9) of the Act, which provides that land occupied by a building and land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by a person, to mean that the Competent Authority cannot declare any land referred to in Section 2(q)(ii) or (iii) as excess vacant land. The court also held that the petitioner's existing holding did not exceed the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act, even if the land appurtenant to the buildings was taken into account. Therefore, the court held that the authorities were not justified in refusing to execute the lease in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. Whether the authorities were justified in refusing to execute the lease in favor of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4(9) of the Act to mean that the Competent Authority cannot declare any land referred to in Section 2(q)(ii) or (iii) as excess vacant land. 2. The court held that the petitioner's existing holding did not exceed the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act, even if the land appurtenant to the buildings was taken into account.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to execute the lease in favor of the petitioner.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) ALOKENDRA Nath Mitter, the petitioner herein, applied to the Public Works Department, Salt Lake Branch, Government of West Bengal for allotment of a plot of land under the Salt Lake City Extension Scheme. By a letter dated the 11th August, 1975, the Assistant Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal on behalf of the Governor offered a plot measuring about 5 cottahs in Sector I/ii of the Salt Lake township for demise to the petitioner on lease for 999 years on the following conditions :-- (a) The petitioner would pay a premium or salami at the rate of Rs. 7000/-per cottah. (b) The petitioner would deposit 50% of the said premium or salami as earnest money with the Reserve Bank of India Calcutta within a specified time and submit to the Government the receipted challan along with a formal application by way of unconditional acceptance of the terms of the proposed lease. (c) The balance 50% of the premium or salami would be payable within two months from the date when the petitioner would be informed that the land was ready for delivery of possession.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid, the petitioner duly deposited a sum of Rs. 17,500/- being 50% of the premium or salami and filed an application in the prescribed form accepting the offer.

( 3 ) BY a letter dated the 28th October, 1975 the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal that he had been allotted Plot No. 28 in Block AB of Section I of the Salt Lake township. By a subsequent letter dated the 12th December, 1975 the said Assistant Secretary informed the petitioner that the said plot was ready for delivery of possession and that on actual measurement the area of the plot had been found to be 5. 1992 cottahs. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,614/- towards the balance premium or salami within 60 days from the date of the said letter by depositing the said amount in the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta. The petitioner was also directed to pay an additional sum of Rupees 30/- on account of the cost of fixing boundary pillars in the said plot.

( 4 ) THE petitioner accordingly deposited the said amounts of Rs. 18,614. 40 as also Rs. 30/- as directed.

( 5 ) BY a letter dated the 2nd March, 1976, the said Assistant Secretary thereafter directed the petitioner to forward a draft deed of lease in respect of the said plot and to complete the execution and registration of the lease within 90 days from the date of issue of the said letter.

( 6 ) THE petitioner alleges that he duly prepared a deed of lease, had the same duly stamped and submitted the same to the authorities for execution.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the Officer on Special Duty, Public Works Department, Metropolitan Development Branch of the Government of West Bengal by his letter dated the 10th May, 1976 directed the petitioner to 'submit an attested copy oi' the petitioner's return, if any, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) or to file an affidavit before a First Class Magistrate furnishing the details of the petitioner's lands and buildings, if any, and also the land held by the petitioner's family in the urban areas of India. The petitioner was further directed to furnish a declaration that his acquisition of the said plot would not be hit by the said Act.

( 8 ) ON or about 21st May, 1975, the petitioner affirmed an affidavit in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The particulars of land and building owned by the petitioner in the urban areas of India as stated in the said affidavit were as follows : (a) Premises No. 266b, Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, Calcutta on a fully built up area of two cottahs, 3 Chittacks, 5 sq. ft. ; (b) Premises No. 10/5a Justice M. N. Mitra Row, Calcutta on a fully built up of one Cottah, 3 Chittacks, 43 sq. ft. ; (c) Undivided 1/4th share in Premises No. 25, Bentink Street, Calcutta area of 6 Cottahs, 8 Chittacks whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1980 Supreme(Cal) 236

High Court Of CalcuttaDipak Kumar SenALOKENDRA NATH MITTER - AppellantVersusASSTT.SECY., PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., GOVT.OF WEST BENGAL - RespondentC. R. 6900 (W) Of 1979Decided On : 06/23/1980

The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot declare any land referred to in Section 2(q)(ii) or (iii) as excess vacant land.

High Court Of Calcutta
Dipak Kumar Sen
ALOKENDRA NATH MITTER - Appellant
Versus
ASSTT.SECY., PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., GOVT.OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 6900 (W) Of 1979
Decided On : 06/23/1980