Laxminarayan Theatres (P) Ltd. Vs. V.N. Karandikar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4946 of 1994
Petitioner: Laxminarayan Theatres (P) Ltd.
Respondent: V.N. Karandikar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4946 of 1994
Judges: S. SAGHIR Ahmad & YOGESH KUMAR SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 02, 2000
Head Note:
LAND CEILING LAW
Urband Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
Order by compet-ent authority, challenged in appeal – Dismissal – Writ petition preferred – Dismissed – Meanwhile, question of “vacant land”, “appurtenant land” and “any other land” decided by Supreme Court – Controversy in this case covered by said decision. Held that High Court judgment is set-aside and in view of decision in Meera Gupta’s case (JT 1994 (4) SC 162) case is remanded for redetermina-tion. (Para 2)
Urband Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
Order by compet-ent authority, challenged in appeal – Dismissal – Writ petition preferred – Dismissed – Meanwhile, question of “vacant land”, “appurtenant land” and “any other land” decided by Supreme Court – Controversy in this case covered by said decision. Held that High Court judgment is set-aside and in view of decision in Meera Gupta’s case (JT 1994 (4) SC 162) case is remanded for redetermina-tion. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Meera Gupta (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., JT 1994 (4) SC 162
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The dispute under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was disposed of by the competent authority by the judgment dated 2.7.1997. The appeal filed before the Collector and Ap-pellate Authority was dismissed. The writ petition filed there-after in the Bombay High Court was also dismissed. In the mean-time, the question involved in this case, especially with regard to the interpretation of “vacant land” “appurtenant land “and ” any other land” was decided by this Court in the case of Meera Gupta (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., JT 1994 (4) SC 162 = (1992) 2 SCC 494.
2. There is no dispute between the parties now that the contro-versy in this case is squarely covered by this decision and there has to be a redetermination of ceiling and surplus area as appli-cable to the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgments impugned in this appeal are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to redetermine the whole case in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Meera Gupta (supra).
1. The dispute under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was disposed of by the competent authority by the judgment dated 2.7.1997. The appeal filed before the Collector and Ap-pellate Authority was dismissed. The writ petition filed there-after in the Bombay High Court was also dismissed. In the mean-time, the question involved in this case, especially with regard to the interpretation of “vacant land” “appurtenant land “and ” any other land” was decided by this Court in the case of Meera Gupta (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., JT 1994 (4) SC 162 = (1992) 2 SCC 494.
2. There is no dispute between the parties now that the contro-versy in this case is squarely covered by this decision and there has to be a redetermination of ceiling and surplus area as appli-cable to the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgments impugned in this appeal are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to redetermine the whole case in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Meera Gupta (supra).
