Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad & Anr. Vs. P.S. Rao
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition No. 1662 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.No. 1696 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.No. 1696 of 1998
Petitioner: Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad & Anr.
Respondent: P.S. Rao
Apeal: Special Leave Petition No. 1662 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.No. 1696 of 1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.No. 1696 of 1998
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 17, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. B. Sridhar, Mr. Y.S. Rao, Advocates with him for the Petitioners
Mr. D.A. Dave, Senior Advocate and Mr S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates with him for the Respondent
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
Sections 20(1)(a), 20(1)(b), 2(1) -Application for exemption – When entertainable – Excess land declared – Land vesting in State – “Holding” – Connotation – If it has same meaning in context of Section 20 as in Section 2(1). Held that ‘holding in Section 20 cannot be given same meaning as in Section 2(1), until the excess land is finally determined, none can apply for exemption. Appeal dismissed.
Held:
At the time when the declaration is filed a person may or may not be in a position to know definitely whether he can be said to be in possession of the excess vacant land or not, or even if he can relieve he is possession of excess land, how much land is liable to be surrendered exactly. Unless the final computation is made, it is indeed difficult to say whether there is excess or even if there is excess, as to what is the extent of the excess land. Unless the quantum of excess land, after the statutory deductions etc. is arrived at, one cannot, decide whether to surrender the excess land or to seek exemption either under Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) or apply under Section 21 or Section 22. (Para 4)
It is only after the excess land is actually determined under Section 10 that a person can know the exact extent of excess land in his holding and think of asking for exemption. The word “hold” in Section 20(1)(b) or Section 20(1)(b) cannot, have the same meaning that can be attributed to it as in Section 2(1). In the context of Section 20(1)(a) and Sec-tion 20(1)(b), the definition given in Section 2(1) cannot be applied. (Paras 6,9)
Cases Reffered:
1. T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and Ors.JT 1996 (4) SC 14
2. Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. JT 1996 (7) SC 113
3. State of A.P., represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Hyderabad v. Valluru Venkateswara Rao (1997 (3) ALT 417)
2. Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. JT 1996 (7) SC 113
3. State of A.P., represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Hyderabad v. Valluru Venkateswara Rao (1997 (3) ALT 417)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh has contended before us that an application for grant of exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not maintainable once the excess land has been declared and the excess land has vested in the State under Section 10, in as much as the declarant cannot be said to be “holding” the land any longer. Reliance is placed on Section 2(1) which defines the words ‘to hold’.
3. We are unable to accept the above contention. The scheme of the Act is that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has to file a declaration under Section 6. Vacant land is defined in Section 2(q) as not including land on which construction is not permissible under building regulations, land occupied by building, before the due date or under construction. Section 2(q) defines urban land as urban land which is referred to as such in master plan etc. but does not include agricultural land. As to what is the relevant ‘master plan’ there are some decisions of this Court. Detailed procedure is specified in the Act as to how individuals, families, firms, companies etc. are to file declarations. As to what is to be done if land is held in different capacities or land with limited rights, like lessee, mortgagee etc. various provisions are made. Section 4(9) deals with person holding land with building and other vacant land. Section 4(9) has been the subject matter of some decisions of this Court.
4. All these provisions require detailed computation based on the facts of each case. In addition, the effect of several judgments of the Courts are to be considered by the authority. Therefore, it is obvious that at the time when the declaration is filed a person may or may not be in a position to know definitely whether he can be said to be in possession of the excess vacant land or not, or even if he can believe he is (sic in) possession of excess land, how much land is liable to be surrendered exactly. This is be-cause of the fact as pointed above, there are various provisions in the statute which provide statutory deductions and computation and unless the final computation is made, it is indeed difficult to say whether there is excess or even if there is excess, as to what is the extent of the excess land. Unless the quantum of excess land, after the statutory deductions etc. is arrived at, one cannot, in our opinion, decide whether to surrender the excess land or to seek exemption either under Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) or apply under Section 21 or Section 22.
5. For example, the ceiling limit in Hyderabad (from where this case arises), is 1000 sq., metres. Even if there are buildings within the property, one has to file a declaration if the total extent is more that 1000 Sq. metres and claim exemption as per statutory deductions. He may claim that after deducting various areas as permitted by the statute, he need not surrender any land. The competent authority may or may not accept the statutory deductions claimed, like appurtenant land etc. and may determine excess. The declarant has a right of appeal. The ap-pellate authority may accept or reject or modify the orders. It may turn out that the excess, in a given case, is (say) only 20 Sq. metres. It is obvious that it is a case for exemption for it will not be useful for government to allot such a small piece of land to weaker sections. In yet another case, the excess may be 500 Sq. metres or more and a declarant may be prepared to con-struct buildings for weaker sections under Section 21 or Section 22 may be invoked. In yet another case, a declarant may claim that exemption is necessary in public interest under Section 20(1)(a) or because of grave hardship, under Section 20(1)(b).
6. In our view, it is only after the excess land is actually determined under Section 10 that a person can know the exact extent of excess land in his holding and think of asking for exemption. There may, of course, be some cases where the extent is so large that a claimant may be able to seek exemption even at the time of filing the declaration but even in those cases, he cannot be definite about the actual extent of excess land.
7. Learned counsel, however, relied upon the definition of the words “to hold” in sub-section (1) of Section (2) to contend that once the final declaration is made and the excess vacant land has vested in the State, the person does not ‘hold’ the excess land and no application for exemption under Section 20 can be filed since Section 20 contemplates filing an application by a person who “holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling area”. Section 2(1) states “
“unless the context otherwise requires,
………………………………………………….
to hold with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land means :
(i) to own such land; or
(ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire pur-chase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities.
8. The definition of the words “to hold” in Section 2(1) is relev-ant at the time of computation of the ceiling area and at the stage of the preliminary determination of excess and the final determination, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the excess is to be determined on the basis of the land permitted by the Act to be held by a person.
9. But, the word “hold” in Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) cannot, in our opinion have the same meaning that can be attrib-uted to it as in Section 2(1). The very definition in Section 2(1) states that the sub-section applies unless there is anything in the context which suggests a different meaning to be given. In our view, in the context of Section 20(1)(a) and Section 20(1)(b), the definition given in Section 2(1) cannot be applied. The reason is that such a construction will make Section 20 unworkable and otiose. We have pointed out above that it is not possible to make any meaningful application for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) or (b) unless the exact quantum of excess is determined under Section 10 after following the various provi-sions of the Act relating to statutory deductions and mode of computation. If the contention of the State referred to above is to be accepted, then the peculiar position will be as follows. As stated by us, before the excess is determined, a person will not able to seek exemption because he does not know what is the actual excess land hold and once the excess is determined, he cannot apply because he is not holding the excess land. Thus, the entire object of Section 20 will be frustrated. That is why we say that the definition of the words ‘to hold’ in Section 2(1) cannot be applied in the context of Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b).
10. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State that an application for exemption can be maintained only before the excess is determined, under Section 10. In our view, the scheme of the Act is to the con-trary. The view taken by the High Court following the decision of this Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 690 = JT 1996 (4) SC 14, Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1996 (9) SCC 633 = JT 1996 (7) SC 113 and State of A.P., represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Hyderabad v. Valluru Venkateswara Rao (1997 (3) ALT 417) does not call for any interference.
11. We dispose of the Special Leave petition accordingly. We do not consider it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which held that Section 20 application is maintain-able even if filed after an order of vesting of excess land passed under Section 10.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh has contended before us that an application for grant of exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not maintainable once the excess land has been declared and the excess land has vested in the State under Section 10, in as much as the declarant cannot be said to be “holding” the land any longer. Reliance is placed on Section 2(1) which defines the words ‘to hold’.
3. We are unable to accept the above contention. The scheme of the Act is that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has to file a declaration under Section 6. Vacant land is defined in Section 2(q) as not including land on which construction is not permissible under building regulations, land occupied by building, before the due date or under construction. Section 2(q) defines urban land as urban land which is referred to as such in master plan etc. but does not include agricultural land. As to what is the relevant ‘master plan’ there are some decisions of this Court. Detailed procedure is specified in the Act as to how individuals, families, firms, companies etc. are to file declarations. As to what is to be done if land is held in different capacities or land with limited rights, like lessee, mortgagee etc. various provisions are made. Section 4(9) deals with person holding land with building and other vacant land. Section 4(9) has been the subject matter of some decisions of this Court.
4. All these provisions require detailed computation based on the facts of each case. In addition, the effect of several judgments of the Courts are to be considered by the authority. Therefore, it is obvious that at the time when the declaration is filed a person may or may not be in a position to know definitely whether he can be said to be in possession of the excess vacant land or not, or even if he can believe he is (sic in) possession of excess land, how much land is liable to be surrendered exactly. This is be-cause of the fact as pointed above, there are various provisions in the statute which provide statutory deductions and computation and unless the final computation is made, it is indeed difficult to say whether there is excess or even if there is excess, as to what is the extent of the excess land. Unless the quantum of excess land, after the statutory deductions etc. is arrived at, one cannot, in our opinion, decide whether to surrender the excess land or to seek exemption either under Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) or apply under Section 21 or Section 22.
5. For example, the ceiling limit in Hyderabad (from where this case arises), is 1000 sq., metres. Even if there are buildings within the property, one has to file a declaration if the total extent is more that 1000 Sq. metres and claim exemption as per statutory deductions. He may claim that after deducting various areas as permitted by the statute, he need not surrender any land. The competent authority may or may not accept the statutory deductions claimed, like appurtenant land etc. and may determine excess. The declarant has a right of appeal. The ap-pellate authority may accept or reject or modify the orders. It may turn out that the excess, in a given case, is (say) only 20 Sq. metres. It is obvious that it is a case for exemption for it will not be useful for government to allot such a small piece of land to weaker sections. In yet another case, the excess may be 500 Sq. metres or more and a declarant may be prepared to con-struct buildings for weaker sections under Section 21 or Section 22 may be invoked. In yet another case, a declarant may claim that exemption is necessary in public interest under Section 20(1)(a) or because of grave hardship, under Section 20(1)(b).
6. In our view, it is only after the excess land is actually determined under Section 10 that a person can know the exact extent of excess land in his holding and think of asking for exemption. There may, of course, be some cases where the extent is so large that a claimant may be able to seek exemption even at the time of filing the declaration but even in those cases, he cannot be definite about the actual extent of excess land.
7. Learned counsel, however, relied upon the definition of the words “to hold” in sub-section (1) of Section (2) to contend that once the final declaration is made and the excess vacant land has vested in the State, the person does not ‘hold’ the excess land and no application for exemption under Section 20 can be filed since Section 20 contemplates filing an application by a person who “holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling area”. Section 2(1) states “
“unless the context otherwise requires,
………………………………………………….
to hold with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land means :
(i) to own such land; or
(ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire pur-chase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities.
8. The definition of the words “to hold” in Section 2(1) is relev-ant at the time of computation of the ceiling area and at the stage of the preliminary determination of excess and the final determination, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the excess is to be determined on the basis of the land permitted by the Act to be held by a person.
9. But, the word “hold” in Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) cannot, in our opinion have the same meaning that can be attrib-uted to it as in Section 2(1). The very definition in Section 2(1) states that the sub-section applies unless there is anything in the context which suggests a different meaning to be given. In our view, in the context of Section 20(1)(a) and Section 20(1)(b), the definition given in Section 2(1) cannot be applied. The reason is that such a construction will make Section 20 unworkable and otiose. We have pointed out above that it is not possible to make any meaningful application for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) or (b) unless the exact quantum of excess is determined under Section 10 after following the various provi-sions of the Act relating to statutory deductions and mode of computation. If the contention of the State referred to above is to be accepted, then the peculiar position will be as follows. As stated by us, before the excess is determined, a person will not able to seek exemption because he does not know what is the actual excess land hold and once the excess is determined, he cannot apply because he is not holding the excess land. Thus, the entire object of Section 20 will be frustrated. That is why we say that the definition of the words ‘to hold’ in Section 2(1) cannot be applied in the context of Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b).
10. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State that an application for exemption can be maintained only before the excess is determined, under Section 10. In our view, the scheme of the Act is to the con-trary. The view taken by the High Court following the decision of this Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 690 = JT 1996 (4) SC 14, Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1996 (9) SCC 633 = JT 1996 (7) SC 113 and State of A.P., represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Hyderabad v. Valluru Venkateswara Rao (1997 (3) ALT 417) does not call for any interference.
11. We dispose of the Special Leave petition accordingly. We do not consider it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which held that Section 20 application is maintain-able even if filed after an order of vesting of excess land passed under Section 10.
