State Of West Bengal vs Smt. Maya Dutta & Ors
- Neutral1997 INSC 363
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 577
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where land is sold by a private agency to a purchaser after the Urban Land (Ceiling of Regulation) Act, 1976 comes into force, the validity of the sale and the grant of permission for alienation depends primarily on whether the selling agency itself is within the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act, not on whether the individual purchaser is within the ceiling limit. If the selling agency is within the ceiling limit, the sale is valid and permission for alienation must be granted regardless of the purchaser's ceiling position. Where a competent authority determines that the selling agency was in excess of the ceiling limit, the land sold to the purchaser must be computed as part of the holding of that agency for purposes of the Act, and any subsequent purchaser from the original purchaser is equally bound by that determination and liable to appropriate action under the Act.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Tapas Ray, Sr.Adv. and Rathin Das, Adv. with him for the appellant D.K. Nag, Parijat Sinha and N.R. Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R 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.
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.
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 Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1981) 1 SCC 1661]. 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 Datta. 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 Bangur 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.
With this finding, the appeal is, disposed of. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free