GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. versus J. SRIDEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1147 · Decided: 12-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
J. SRIDEVI AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2002 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy Laws: 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Section 2(n) A(i), 
5(3) r!w Section 28(a) and Schedule I Column 2-Land-Originally agricultural C 
and falling outside master plan in force on the appointed day-By subsequent 
amendment master plan extended to the Land-Applicability of the provisions-
Plea that the provisions are not applicable on the land since, the original 
nature of land cannot be altered by subsequent amendment-Rejected-
Provisions held applicable. 
D 
Constitution of India : 1950, Art. 226. 
Application filed before statutory authority-During pendency writ 
petition filed-High Court deciding applicability of statute-Held, High Court 
not justified, since statutory authority vested with power to determine the E 
same-Administrative Latv. 
Respondents purchased the land in question which at the ti111e of 
commencement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was an 
agricultural land. The land wa_s converted for residential purpose after 
payment of requisite fee. Respondents thereafter applied to Hyderabad Urban F 
Development Authority (BUDA) for sanction of lay-out plan and group 
housing scheme, but the same demanded 'No Objection' Certificate under 
the Act. Respondents filled application before Special Officer•cum-Competent 
Authority alleging that the land was outside the purview of the Act as they 
were holding land to the extent of 1000 sq. mtrs. and prayed for grant of G 
certificate to that effect. The certificate was not granted. 
During pendency of the application before the Competent Authority, 
respondents filed writ petition praying for direction to BUDA to sanction 
layout and group housing scheme as the lands owned by them were outside 
1147 
H 
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A the preview of the Act. Appellant-State contended that since the land was 
included within the Urban Agglomeration, any transaction without clearance 
as required under the Act was invalid. Respondents contended that the land 
could not be said to be within Urban Agglomeration since the same was 
originally agricultural land and was not covered by any master plan, extension 
B of master plan to a particular area by way of amendment cannot alter the 
nature of the land; and that the land became urban in order to come within 
the purview of the Act only after it was converted into residential zone, and 
since they were individually holding about 1000 sq. mtrs., it was within the 
ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. 
C 
Single Judge of the High Court held that since the land was situated 
outside the master plan in force on the appointed day, the provisions of the 
Act would not be attracted to the same. 
In appeal, Division Bench upheld the decision of Single Jud~e and 
directed HUDA to pass layout plan without insisting for 'No Objection' 
D certificate. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Division Bench was not justified in declaring that the lands 
owned by these respondents were outside the purview of the provisions of the 
E Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and also further directing 
HUDA to sanction forthwith the layout and the group housing scheme 
submitted by the respondents. [1154-G] 
F 
State of A.P. and Ors. v. N. Audikesava Reddy and Ors., [2002] 1 sec 
227, relied on. 
Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) v. State of UP. and Ors., [1993] 2 sec 
546, referred to. 
2.1. When the applications were pending before the special Officer-cum-
G Competent Authority, the High Court should have directed the authority to 
take an appropriate decision. When a statutory authority is vested with power 
to determine the question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act, 
it is ordinarily desirable to leave the question to be decided by such authority. 
The aggrieved party can file appeal against the decision within the framework 
provided under the Statute and the ultimate decision also could be challenged 
H under judicial review, if permitted in law. Instead of undergoing the normal 
' I 
·"'I 
I t 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. J. SRIDEVI [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 
1149 
procodure, the respondents herein directly approached the High Court for A 
the reliefs sought for by them. [1155-C-DJ 
2.2. AU the rival contentions by the appellants and respondents are to 
be decided by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority. In view of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.