Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE
RAMA DEBI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
CR 10666 (W) Of 1980
Decided On : 02/26/1987
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - The Act prohibits the transfer of urban property without the previous permission of the Competent Authority. Section 27 grants the Competent Authority the power to grant or refuse permission for transfer. Sections 5 and 10 impose restrictions on the transfer of vacant land and land in excess of the ceiling limit. The court analyzed these provisions to determine the scope of the Competent Authority's power to grant permission and the limitations on revoking or declaring transactions null and void.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The respondent acquired a property through a deed of gift and submitted a return under the Act. Permission to transfer the property was granted by the Competent Authority. The property was subsequently sold to the petitioner. The Competent Authority later issued a show cause notice declaring the sales null and void. The Competent Authority and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue declared the sales null and void. The petitioner argued that the Competent Authority had no authority to review the order granting permission and that the sales were made in reliance on the permission granted. The court held that once permission is granted under Section 27 of the Act, it cannot be revoked or declared null and void. The court quashed the orders declaring the sales null and void and issued a writ of mandamus to prevent further effect of those orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 5, 10, and 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It concluded that the power to grant permission under Section 27 is discretionary and once permission is granted, it cannot be revoked or declared null and void. The court also considered the principles of estoppel and held that the Competent Authority is estopped from revoking the permission granted. The court further held that the power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by law. Since there is no provision for review in the Act, the Competent Authority does not have the power to review its own order. The court interpreted Section 27 in a manner that avoids absurdity and unreasonable results. It held that the Competent Authority cannot declare a transaction null and void when it was made after obtaining formal permission under Section 27.
Ratio Decidendi: Once permission is granted under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, it cannot be revoked or declared null and void. The power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by law. The Competent Authority is estopped from revoking the permission granted. Section 27 should be interpreted in a manner that avoids absurdity and unreasonable results.
Result: The court quashed the orders declaring the sales null and void and issued a writ of mandamus to prevent further effect of those orders.
( 1 ) IN the writ application, the petitioner challenged the validity of the orders dt. 30th Mar. , 1978, 9th Feb. 1979 and 21st Jan. 1980 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the order dt. 29th Aug. 1980 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.
( 2 ) THE fact of the case in short, is that, the respondent 8, Mrs. Sally I. D. Rodda, the respondent 9 acquired the holding No. 56 and 56/1, Kings Road, Howrah by virtue of a deed of gift from her mother Mrs. Sophia Bibi Jackob. The holding No. 65/1, Kings Road is measured about 33 cottahs 6 chitaks of land covered by a pucca structure, a number of R. T. and C. I. sheds and several khatals. According to the petitioner, 56/1 Kings Road was a property comprised of land with building and did not fall under the mischief of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It was stated that by way of abundant caution, the said Respondent No. 8, Mrs. Rodda submitted a return under S. 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (referred to as the said Act ). The name of the respondent No. 8 was mutated in the Register of the Howrah Municipality as well as in the Records of Rights mentioned by the Collector of Howrah in this behalf. It is further stated that in the Record of Rights, it was specifically mentioned that there were some structures in the said plot No. 43 in mouja Golabari, P. S. Golabari, Howrah. From the Assessment Demand Register and the Municipal Licence granted by the Howrah Municipality it appears that in the said records there were specific mention about the existence of pucca structures, sheds and khatals on the said land. It was also stated that there was a small strip of land within the said holding No. 56/1, Kings Road, Howrah, which according to the petitioner was not also a vacant land.
( 3 ) ON 12th Nov. , 1976, the said respondent No. 8 made an application under S. 27 (2) of the said Act before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Competent Authority, Howrah for permission to transfer the said property by way of sale and that the said application was received by the office of the said authority. In the said application, the Respondent No. 8 made a declaration that the said land and building held by her was intended to be transferred by way of sale to the petitioners and that it was also stated that the building stated in the said holding was constructed about 20 years back. Accordingly, the respondent No. 8 requested the Competent Authority to grant permission for effecting such transfer by way of sale. Thereafter, on 9th Feb. 1976, the Competent Authority under the said Act passed the following order :
"urban Land Ceiling Case No. CUC 745 of 1975 under S. 27 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976
Name of Applicant : Mrs. Sally I. D. Rodda, wife of Late I. D. Rodda.
Address : 10, Rippon Lane, Calcutta - 700 016.
Permission for sale of land with building the particulars of which are given below has not been refused or the right of preemption has not been exercised within the statutory periods of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application.
Particulars of land with building :-
1. Name of Municipality Mouza and J. L. No. : How. Municipality.
2. Holding No. and Name of Street, Land or Road Kh. No. Dag No. Etc. : 58/1, King's Road.
3. Name of Police Station : Gola Bari.
4. Area of land with building in question : 11 Kata 2 Ch. land with building.
Seal. sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, How. Competent Authority. 9-2-77.
10-2-77. Signature. 10-2-77. "
( 4 ) IT was stated that before such permission was granted, an enquiry was duly held in the matter and that the authority concerned on being fully satisfied with the particulars submitted in the said application granted such permission. Thereafter on the basis of the said order dt. 9th Feb. 1977 passed by the Competent Authority granting permission to sell the said property in quest
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
