1979 Supreme(Cal) 68

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
Krishna Narayan Mukherjee
Versus
State of West Bengal & other
Matter No. 640 of 1978
Decided On: February 23, 1979

The competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication dated 22nd September, 1977 only if the land in question is urban land.

Headnote:

URBAN LAND (CEILING & REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTIONS 2(O), 2(Q), 6(1), 20(1) - WEST BENGAL URBAN LAND TAXATION ACT, 1976 - SECTION 7 - CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1951 - SECTION 371 - URBAN LAND (CEILING & REGULATION) RULES, 1976 - RULE 14 - URBAN LAND (CEILING & REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - COMPETENT AUTHORITY'S LETTER DATED 22.9.1977 - VALIDITY - URBAN LAND - DEFINITION - AGRICULTURAL LAND - EXEMPTION - CONDITIONS - JURISDICTION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY - SCOPE - CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE - PERMISSION - REFUSAL - GROUNDS - VALIDITY - URBAN LAND TAXATION ACT, 1976 - SECTION 7 - VALIDITY - URBAN LAND (CEILING & REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - RETURN UNDER SECTION 6(1) - EFFECT - GOVERNMENT'S OPINION ON EXEMPTION - RELEVANCE - MIDDLE INCOME OR LOW INCOME GROUP - ACCOMMODATION - GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, who claimed to have purchased certain land and wanted to construct a building, challenged the order or communication dated 22nd September, 1977, issued by the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta and Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the action taken by the Corporation of Calcutta thereupon. The dispute related to premises no. 48 Barrackpore Trunk Road, Calcutta, outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. The said land comprised of garden measuring about 23 bighas 7 cottahs and 7 chittaks and according to the petitioner, were at all material times before January 28, 1976 entered in the revenue and land record, as for the purpose of agriculture. The petitioner had purchased 1 cottahs 8 chittaks and 34 sq ft. of land for Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 1,501/- was paid as earnest. On the 12th September, 1975 a scheme was submitted to the Corporation of Calcutta for sanction under S. 371 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Bill was introduced in the Parliament on the 28th January, 1976. According to the petitioner from January, 1976, filling up the Jheel was taken up by the respondents Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioner has further stated that a part of the said land abutting Barrackpore Trunk Road was and is under an alignment of the Calcutta Improvement Trust but the said land has not been and is not specified in and Master Plan prepared under any law for the time being in force or pursuant to an order made by any appropriate authority. On the 17th February, 1976, assent of the President to the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was given. On the 20th May, 1976, an application for exemption under S. 20(1) of the said Act was filed by the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, according to the petitioner, on the advice of Sri S.P. Mullick of the office of the Land Ceiling Authority. In June, 1976 the petitioner asserts, filling up of Jheel was completed and on the 12th August, 1976, return under S. 6(1) of the said Act was filed. But the same was without prejudice to the contention that no vacant land in excess of the ceiling as defined under the Act, was held by the owners. On the 20th November, 1976, it is alleged that there was a communication of non-acceptance by the Competent Authority of a notice under S. 26(1) of the said Act and on the 13th December, 1976 there was a letter from one Abani Kanta Banerjee, acknowledging the letter dated 20th November, 1976 and purporting to return the receipts and asking for certain papers to be submitted. The petitioner states that since November, 1976 felling of trees was arranged. Between 29th January, 1977 and 31st January, 1977 two conveyances of one-fourth and three-fourth shares were executed by the respondents nos. 29 to 35 and respondents nos. 8 to 27 respectively in favour of the petitioner. On or about the 1st April, 1977 a scheme was prepared by the respondents nos. 6 and 7 for giving sanction under S. 371 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, by the respondent no.3, the Corporation of Calcutta. On the 22nd September, 1977 a letter was written by the Competent Authority to the City Architect of the Corporation of Calcutta asking him to take adequate precaution to see that building plans are sanctioned. The petitioner challenged the said letter or communication.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned communication dated 22nd September, 1977 issued by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was not sustainable as the land in question was not vacant land in terms of the Act. The Court further held that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication as the land in question was agricultural land and was excluded from the definition of urban land under Section 2(o) of the Act. The Court also held that the filing of the return under Section 6(1) of the Act by the owners of the land did not affect the position as the land was mainly used for agriculture and did not come within the purview of Section 2(o) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 had jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication dated 22nd September, 1977? 2. Whether the land in question was vacant land in terms of the Act? 3. Whether the filing of the return under Section 6(1) of the Act by the owners of the land affected the position?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication dated 22nd September, 1977 only if the land in question is urban land. 2. The land in question is not vacant land in terms of the Act as it is mainly used for agriculture and is excluded from the definition of urban land under Section 2(o) of the Act. 3. The filing of the return under Section 6(1) of the Act by the owners of the land does not affect the position as the land is mainly used for agriculture and does not come within the purview of Section 2(o) of the Act.

Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute to the extent indicated. The impugned communication dated 22nd September, 1977 was quashed and the Corporation of Calcutta was directed to ignore the said notification and consider the plans submitted and grant sanction in accordance with law, provided the other conditions are fulfilled as required by the law.