S. V ASUDEVETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 715 · Decided: 30-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
S. V ASUDEV A ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
MARCH 30, 1993 
(P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
B 
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976: 
Sections 20(1)(a) & (b) and 21-Vacant land in excess of ceiling 
limil-£.xemption could be granted only for the purpose of user of such C 
land-Not for purposes of transfe,......State Government has no power to pem1it 
sale of such land even on ground of undue hardship. 
Section 20(1 )(b ): Exemption-Permission to transfer excess vacant 
land-Classification of land-owners as debtors and non-debtors-Reason-
ableness of-Discretion of State Government in granting exemption- Un-
D 
guided and wltrammel/e~Transfer of /and-Restriction on registration in 
respect of land not exempted--Discrimination-lrrationaf-Hence S.20(1 )(b) 
held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
Sections 26, 27, 28: Transfer of excess vacant land-Not permissible 
unless encumbered with a building or portion thereof 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14-Whether S.20(J)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regula-
tion) Act, 1976 is violative of 
Words & Phrases: 
"Person'~ "Undue hardship''-Meaning in the context of Urban Land 
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, I97fr-Sections 2( 1) and 20( l)(b) respective(v. 
E 
F 
The second respondent, a partnership firm was carrying on the G 
business of manufacturing and selling polished granites. It was running 
its factory in a small portion of the land owned by it and the rest of the 
land was vacant when the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 
was made applicable to that area. The firm made an application to. the 
State Government for exemption of the vacant land from the provisions of H 
715 
716 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the said Act, and the exemption was granted subject to certain conditions. 
B 
The Competent Authority under the Act came to the conclusion that 
there was some excess vacant land and directed the publication ofa notifica-
tion u/s 10(1) of the Act for acquisition of the same. Later, the firm made an 
application to the State Government for permission to sell thevacaotlaod to 
the third respondent (builders) mainly on the ground that the firm had been 
incurring huge losses in its business. On 63.1987 the State Government 
permitted the firm to sell the land to the builders, only to the exte.nt of 16194 , 
sq. mtrs. Again the firm filed another application to transfer the remaining 
3444 sq. mtrs. oflaod to the builders, and on 18.4.1987 the State Government 
C permitted the same subject to certain conditions. 
Consequently, by a sale deed dated 30.9.1987 the firm entered into a 
deed of absolute sale with the builders for sale of the entire vacant land. 
Writ Petitions by way of Public Interest Litigation were filed in the 
D High Court challenging the exemptions granted by the State Government, 
for declaring the sale deed void B:nd inoperative and for acquiring the land 
for the weaker sections. A Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions an.d gave 
certain directions including sale of plots to he carved out from the land 
and only such number of plots as would be necessary to discharge the debts 
of the firm were to be sold and the remaining portion of the vacant land 
E was to he acquired under the Act. He also held that there were no ma/a 
fides in the State Government granting exemptions by its orders dated 
63.1987 and 18.4.19P7. 
F 
G 
Against the decision of the Single Judge, appeals were preferred 
before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench set 
aside the findings as well as the direction given by the Single Judge. 
Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Division Bench, the appellants preferred 
the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 
BY THE COURT: 
1.1. The provisions of Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling 
and Regulation) Act, 1976 do not permit the State Government to give 
H 
exemption to the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit for the purposes 
·--< 
-
• 
r 
-
'>-
' 
' 
>.. 
S. VASUDEVAv. STATEOFKARNATAKA 
717 
of transferring the same. [757 CJ 
A 
1.2. The orders dated 6.3.1987 and 18.4.1987 granting exemption and 
permission to the firm for sale of the land are void ab illitio having been 
~ passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the sale-deed dated 30.9.1987 
executed by the 2nd respondent-firm in favour of the 3rd respondent-
B 
builders is invalid and inoperative, as the respondent-firm had no legal 
right to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.