SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Kodandaramayya, J
house building co-operative societies – Appellant
Versus
State Government – Respondent
Writ Petitions | No. 5968, 6611, 6854, 8005, 1183, 6173, 6365, 6329, 6639, 7906, 12607, 7374, 6718, 7330, 6302, 3664, 2892, 3477, 3400 | 1983



For the Appellants/Petitioners:Various Advocates
For the Respondents: Government Pleader

Authority under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act requires consideration of public interest and individual cases, and blanket orders denying exemptions are void.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 20, 36 - Power of State Government to exempt vacant land from ceiling provisions - G.O. directing rejection of all exemption applications under S.20 deemed void as violating the necessity to consider public interest and hardship - Guidelines for exemptions must not create blanket refusals without considering the particular circumstances related to bona fide housing cooperatives. (Paras 1, 8, 11, 34)

Facts of the case:
Several house building cooperative societies challenged G.O. Ms. No. 964, which mandated rejection of all exemption applications under S.20, claiming it contravened the Act’s provisions, harming genuine cooperatives formed to help the needy. The State failed to verify applications on an individual basis.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the power to exempt land under S.20 is obligatory, and G.O. Ms. No. 964 was invalid as it hindered compliance with statutory obligations. Denial of exemptions under a general mandate contradicts the purpose of aiding disadvantaged groups.

Issues: 1) Limits of State authority under S.20 for exemptions from ceiling limits. 2) Interpretation of governmental directions under Arts. 256 and 257 relating to the implementation of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for public interest must guide the exercise of exemption powers; rejection of all applications as dictated by G.O. Ms. No. 964 contradicts the balance of legislative intent aimed at equitable land distribution. The State’s obligation to consider individual merits remains.

Result: The writ petitions were ordered in favor of the petitioners, directing the consideration of their applications consistent with S.20.

Table of Content
1. state government's power under the urban land act is significant. (Para 1 , 2)
2. guidelines for exemption under s.20 outline necessary conditions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. government guidelines changed due to speculation concerns. (Para 5 , 6)
4. legislative intent seeks cooperation and equitable land distribution. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. rejection of applications seen as contrary to legislative intent. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. exemption power must be exercised judiciously. (Para 15 , 19)
7. specific cases illustrate the application of s.20. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

1. The true limit of the power of the State Government to exempt from the ceiling limit any vacant land under S.20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as could be gathered from the objects of the Act and the extent of the authority of the Central Government to issue directions to the State Government for the implementation of the Act under Arts.256 and 257 of the Constitution read with S.36 of the Act, are the questions of general interest and considerable importance that are evoked in this batch of writ petitions.

2. The Act is a Central enactment and provides for the imposition of ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations. The reason for the enactment is the necessity to exercise social control over the scarce resource of urban land due to the growth of population and increasing urbanisation. The dominant object sought to be achieved by the Act is to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons so as to checkmate speculation and profiteering therein and ensure equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve common good. In order to achieve the said object, provision for the imposition of a ceiling to hold vacant land is made in S.4 appearing in Chap. III of the Act. S.5 deals with the transfer of vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit. "Vacant land" is defined under S.2(q) of the Act. S.10 provides for the acquisition of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Sub-sec.(3) of S.10 lays down that vacant land declared to be in excess under sub-sec.(1) shall vest absolutely in the State Government with effect from the date of the notification under sub-sec.(3). S.19 of the Act exempts the provisions of the Act to any vacant land held by the Central or State Government, or any local authority or any corporation established by or under a Central or a State Act or any company as defined in S.617 of the Companies Act, any military, naval or air force institution, any bank or any public or religious trust or any co - operative society or any educational or cultural institution or club etc. The most relevant section in the context is S.20 of the Act which gives power to the State Government to exempt vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act. S.25 to 30 appearing in Chapter IV of the Act provide for the regulation of transfer and use of urban property, S.36 is the next relevant section which confers power on the Central Government to give such directions to the State Government as may appear to the Central Govt. to be necessary for implementation of the provisions of the Act.

3. The Act came into force on 17th Feb. 1976. With the growth of population and increasing urbanisation housing problem had become acute in urban areas. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the past two decades the State Government encouraged orderly development of urban areas and construction of houses through co - operative housing societies. Therefore, a number of house building co - operative societies had been registered in the State. The main object of these societies was to acquire land, develop it, divide it into plots and allot the same to their members for the construction of houses. The societies had purchased large extents of land from various vendors and entered into agreements of sale by paying huge amounts as advances. Pursua


























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top