The competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 has no jurisdiction to refuse permission to sell agricultural land or to direct the registering authority not to register any document of sale in respect of such land.

In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the proceeding in respect of Case No. Misc./Agriculture/58 of 1978 under. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the order dated 24th of May, 1978 passed by S.D.O. & Competent Authority under. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and also the order dated 27th/29th of May, 1978 passed by S.D.O. & Competent Authority Howrah under the said Act. The petitioner stated that petitioner is the sole owner and occupier of about 1.88 decimals (about 7545 squares metres) of agricultural land in Mouza Bally, Khatian No. 2777, Dag Nos. 5973 and 5974. According to the petitioner the aforesaid agricultural land is entered in the land records as such long before the 28th of January 1976 which is the appropriate date under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the said agricultural land is recorded in the land records as "Sali" and the same was and is actually being used for cultivation of paddy and other crops having regard to the agricultural seasons and natural advantages and cultivation facilities. It is the case of the petitioner that excepting any particular period or any particular time or any particular portion of the land when cultivation could not be carried on or crops could not, be raised due to financial or other difficulties the said agricultural land was and is all along put to cultivation and raising of crops. The petitioner, further alleges that the petitioner engages labourers who cultivate and prepare the said land from time to time as and when required to raise the crops. Further, according to the petitioner, the nature and character of the soil and the shape and the size and location on of the said land are such that nothing but cultivation and raising of crops are possible. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the land records which indicate the said land as “Sali”. The said records however were prepared in the year 1956 petitioner states that he wanted to sell the land and buyers began to come and examine the, said land and petitioner was wrongly advised to apply for permission from Sub-divisional Officer, Howrah who is the competent authority in Howrah under the said Act. The petitioner states that there was no need for obtaining any permission or certificate from the said authority as the land in question was agricultural land and was not urban land or vacant land under the said Act. According to the petitioner, if the land is agricultural land, then the same does not come within the purview of the said Act and therefore there is no question of any permission, for transaction in respect of said agricultural land nor is there any scope of any certificate that the land in question is agricultural land under the said Act. The petitioner, has in this connection relied on several provisions of the said Act and also certain provisions of certain allied Acts and the Constitution of India. I will deal with the said provisions later. But as mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner, according to the petitioner now under a misapprehension had applied on the 29th of September, before the appropriate authority for issuing a certificate that the land in question is agricultural land. The said application was registered Misc. Agricultural Case No. 58 of 1978 under the said Act. Thereupon the petitioner received an intimation from the K.H.O.I/Enquiry Officer under the said Act, who is the respondent No. 2 in the present application where by the petitioner was requested to be present, with necessary documents on the 5th of April, 1978. The petitioner states that the petitioner duly appeared and produced all the documents as required to prove that the land was agricultural land and that the petitioner has a good and marketable title to the said agricultural land. Thereupon, upon repeated enquiries, the petitioner alleges, that the petitioner