2002 Supreme(Cal) 56

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Dipak Prakas Kundu, J.
Sibpriya Gupta Bhaya - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W. P. No. 3088 of 2000
Decided On : January 30, 2002

Land occupied by a building with a dwelling unit that was constructed or in the process of construction on the appointed day is not "any other land" within the meaning of Section 4(9) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and cannot be reckoned for calculating the extent of excess vacant land.

Headnote:

URBAN LAND CEILING ACT - SECTION 4(9), 5(3), 6, 8, 9, 10, 27 - VACANT LAND - TRANSFER OF LAND - CALCULATION OF EXCESS VACANT LAND - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 5(3) - VALIDITY OF TRANSFER.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the application of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in relation to a property located in Calcutta. The property, known as Premises No. 27D/3, Baburam Ghosh Road, was initially owned by Smt. Hemanta Nalini Ghosh, who submitted a statement under Section 6 of the Act in 1978. The authorities determined that the property was entirely vacant land with an area of 2333.03 sq. metres and issued a draft statement under Section 8. Smt. Ghosh filed objections, which were rejected by the Competent Authority. A final statement under Section 9 was issued in 1981, and a notification under Section 10(1) was published in 1983, declaring the excess vacant land. The property was subsequently transferred to various parties, including the petitioner's wife. The petitioner challenged the validity of the proceedings under the Act, arguing that the authorities erred in reckoning the area of a residential building at another property owned by Smt. Ghosh, Premises No. 7/1A, Jotindra Mohan Avenue, in calculating the excess vacant land. The petitioner also argued that the transfer of the property to his wife was valid as it was within the ceiling limit and not hit by Section 5(3) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the authorities erred in reckoning the area of the residential building at Premises No. 7/1A, Jotindra Mohan Avenue, in calculating the excess vacant land. The court interpreted Section 4(9) of the Act, which provides for the inclusion of "any other land" in the calculation of excess vacant land, to exclude land occupied by a building with a dwelling unit that was constructed or in the process of construction on the appointed day. The court found that the building at Premises No. 7/1A, Jotindra Mohan Avenue, was constructed prior to the appointed day and had a dwelling unit, and therefore, it was not "any other land" within the meaning of Section 4(9). The court also held that the transfer of the property to the petitioner's wife was valid as it was within the ceiling limit and not hit by Section 5(3) of the Act, which prohibits the transfer of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit before the publication of a notification under Section 10(1).

Issues: 1. Whether the authorities erred in reckoning the area of the residential building at Premises No. 7/1A, Jotindra Mohan Avenue, in calculating the excess vacant land. 2. Whether the transfer of the property to the petitioner's wife was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4(9) of the Act to exclude land occupied by a building with a dwelling unit that was constructed or in the process of construction on the appointed day from the calculation of excess vacant land. 2. The court held that the transfer of the property to the petitioner's wife was valid as it was within the ceiling limit and not hit by Section 5(3) of the Act, which prohibits the transfer of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit before the publication of a notification under Section 10(1).

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the draft statement under Section 6, the final statement under Section 9, the notification issued under Section 10, the deed of gift or patta in favor of respondent No. 5, and the findings of the Competent Authority that the property was vacant land as defined under Chapter-III of the Act. The authorities under the Act were directed to take steps in accordance with the court's judgment and order.