LALA JEETMAL KAPOOR TRUST versus STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 08-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A. 
LALA JEETMAL KAPOOR TRUST 
v. 
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 8, 1992 
B 
[L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: Sections 2(q)(i),6,8,9 
and 2o-Land dedicated to public purpose-Acquisition of-Whether entitled 
to exemption-Area meant for construction of roads and public-Whether to 
C be excluded- Directions issued. 
A draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling 
and Regul.ation) Act, ~976, was issued proposing to acquire 1071.10 sq. 
metres, out of 2071.10 sq. metres of land owned by the appellant· Trust, as 
per the master plan for Southern Kanpur City Extension Scheme No. II 
D notified on 17.1.1921. 
Objections were filed on behalf of the appellant~ Trust that the 
layout as proposed by the Trust had been sanctioned by the controlling 
authority, provisions for construction of road and park meant for general 
E 
public use had also been provided, and an agreement dated 12.4.75 was 
entered into between Kanpur Development Authority and the Trust and 
orders thereon had been passed on 13.10.77, and that an application 
under Section 20 of the Act for exemption had also been made to the 
Government. 
F 
The objections were overruled, and the direction was given to 
prepare a final statement under Section 9 of the Act. 
· Aggrieved, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, who al· 
lowed the appeal in part holding that the competent authority should have 
G excluded the area meant for roads and the park, in view of sub-clause (i) 
of clause ( q) of Section 2 of the· Act, and that the surplus land in the hands 
of the appellant was only 131.10 sq. meters. A writ petition challenging the 
correctness of this order was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the 
appeal, by special leave, by the appellant-Trust. 
H 
On behalf of the appellant· Trust, it was contended that as of date, 
424 
.. 
j 
-
TRUST v. STATE OF U.P. [MOlIAN, J.) 
425 
tht: application for exemption under Section 20 was pending before the A 
Government and should that be decided in his favour, there would be no 
necessity to go into the other questions, and-even otherwise, the inter-
pretation of Section 2(q)(i) by the High Court was not correct. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the High Court 
was right in its interpretation of Section 2(q)(i), it talked of a building not B 
being permissible; in other words, where no construction at all could be 
made, and that was not the case in the instant case, and that the pendency 
of the appellant's application for exemption did not bar the High Court 
from going into the merits. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD: The interest of justice would. be met by issuing the following 
directions: 
c 
(i) It is open to the appellant to pursue the application for exemp-
D 
tion under Section 20 of the Act. [427D] 
(ii) Should the appellant succeed in getting the exemption, no fur-
ther question arises, and [ 427E] 
(iii) In the event of denial of benefit of exemption, it would be open E 
to the appellant to challenge the order. While so challenging, the ap~llant 
will be at liberty to canvass the correctness of the finding of the High 
Court with regard to interpretation of Section 2(q)(i) of the Act. (427 F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2559 of 
1985. 
F 
Fro·m the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.84 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 7160 of 1980. 
L.K. Bhushan and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellant. 
R.C. Verma for A.K. Goel for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
MOHAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment dated 12.11.1984 passed by ·the Allahabad High Court in Civil H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7160 of 1980. 
The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 
The appellant-Trust was started in the year 1917 for the benefit of 
poor Khattrey girls. Kanpur Southern City Extension Scheme No. II was 
B 
notified on 17.1.1921. Under the said Notification the land belonging to the 
Trust was sought to be acquired~ On 25th of April, 1928 a trust deed was 
executed whereby Jeet MaLKapoor, the founder of that Trust, dedicated 
his properties for the benefit of the public. 
c 
Devi Das. Kapoor the Manager of the said Trust, filed a statement 
under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the effect 

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