State of West Bengal Vs. Smt. Maya Dutta & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3139 of 1986
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.81 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 1453 of 1981)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.81 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 1453 of 1981)
Petitioner: State of West Bengal
Respondent: Smt. Maya Dutta & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3139 of 1986
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.81 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 1453 of 1981)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.81 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 1453 of 1981)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 03, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Tapas Ray, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rathin Das, Advocate with him for the appellant.
Mr. D.K. Nag, Mr. Parijat Sinha and Mr. N.R. Choudhary, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
LAND AND CEILING
Urban Land (Ceiling of Regulation Act, 1976
Section 27 (2) – Appellant purchased land after 1975 from B and applied for permission to sell the same – Held whether respondent was within ceiling limit or not is not material and question was whether seller B was or was not within ceiling limit – Purchase and grant of permission to respondent valid in terms of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singh ji v. Union of India & Ors. – However if B was having excess land, then appropriate action necessary to be taken to compute the excess land of each person.
Urban Land (Ceiling of Regulation Act, 1976
Section 27 (2) – Appellant purchased land after 1975 from B and applied for permission to sell the same – Held whether respondent was within ceiling limit or not is not material and question was whether seller B was or was not within ceiling limit – Purchase and grant of permission to respondent valid in terms of Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singh ji v. Union of India & Ors. – However if B was having excess land, then appropriate action necessary to be taken to compute the excess land of each person.
Cases Reffered:
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India & Ors. ((1981) 1 SCC 166). (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, made on May 18, 1981 dismissing the Civil Order No.1453/81.
2. Smt. Maya Datta had purchased 1065 sq. ft. of land under sale deed dated February 19, 1976, after the Urban Land (Ceiling of Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the “Act”) had come into force, from Bangrur Land Development Corporation Ltd., a private agency. She also had purchased some other properties with which we are not concerned. She applied for permission under Section 27(2) of the Act for sale of the building constructed on the land. Though the competent authority had refused permission under Section 27(3) of the Act, on appeal under Section 33, the appellate authority granted her permission which was questioned by the State in the revision. The High Court dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. It is not clear whether Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd., a private agency was in possession of excess vacant land under the Act. The primary question that required to be decided by the competent authority and the appellate authority was: whether the said agency was within the ceiling limit computing the land in question alienated to Smt. Maya Datta. If it were to be held that the said agency was in possession of the land within the ceiling limit, necessarily, the sale made in favour of Smt. Maya Datta in question is in accordance with the law. In that perspective, whether Smt. Maya Datta was within the ceiling limit or not is not material. The permission, therefore, for alienation is required to be granted in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India & Ors. ((1981) 1 SCC 166). Therefore, the purchase and grant of permission to Smt. Maya Datta, to that extent become valid. However, it is left open to be considered by the competent authority whether the alienation of the land in question to Smt. Maya Datta, is subject to decision by the competent authority that Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd. was within the ceiling limit equally of Maya Dutta. In the event of the competent authority deciding that the Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd. was in excess of the ceiling limit to the extent of land sold by that authority to the respondent, Smt. Maya Datta would be required to be computed as part of the holding of Bangure Land Development Corporation Ltd. and the purchaser from Maya Datta is also bound by it, equally of Maya Dutta. Hence, appropriate action is required to be taken against the said agency.
4. With this finding, the appeal is, disposed of. No costs.
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, made on May 18, 1981 dismissing the Civil Order No.1453/81.
2. Smt. Maya Datta had purchased 1065 sq. ft. of land under sale deed dated February 19, 1976, after the Urban Land (Ceiling of Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the “Act”) had come into force, from Bangrur Land Development Corporation Ltd., a private agency. She also had purchased some other properties with which we are not concerned. She applied for permission under Section 27(2) of the Act for sale of the building constructed on the land. Though the competent authority had refused permission under Section 27(3) of the Act, on appeal under Section 33, the appellate authority granted her permission which was questioned by the State in the revision. The High Court dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. It is not clear whether Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd., a private agency was in possession of excess vacant land under the Act. The primary question that required to be decided by the competent authority and the appellate authority was: whether the said agency was within the ceiling limit computing the land in question alienated to Smt. Maya Datta. If it were to be held that the said agency was in possession of the land within the ceiling limit, necessarily, the sale made in favour of Smt. Maya Datta in question is in accordance with the law. In that perspective, whether Smt. Maya Datta was within the ceiling limit or not is not material. The permission, therefore, for alienation is required to be granted in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India & Ors. ((1981) 1 SCC 166). Therefore, the purchase and grant of permission to Smt. Maya Datta, to that extent become valid. However, it is left open to be considered by the competent authority whether the alienation of the land in question to Smt. Maya Datta, is subject to decision by the competent authority that Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd. was within the ceiling limit equally of Maya Dutta. In the event of the competent authority deciding that the Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd. was in excess of the ceiling limit to the extent of land sold by that authority to the respondent, Smt. Maya Datta would be required to be computed as part of the holding of Bangure Land Development Corporation Ltd. and the purchaser from Maya Datta is also bound by it, equally of Maya Dutta. Hence, appropriate action is required to be taken against the said agency.
4. With this finding, the appeal is, disposed of. No costs.
