SMT. ATIA MOHAMMADI BEGUM versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 15-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
-
SMT. ATIA MOHAMMAD! BEGUM 
A 
~·· 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 1993 
[J.S. VERMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
'1 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976: Section 2(o), Expiana-
tion (C}-Urban Land-Determination of-Land specified in master plan for 
a purpose other than agricu/tur~Whether means /and so specified in the c 
master plan which was in existence at the time of the commencement of the 
Act-Vacant land entered into revenue or land records as for purpose of 
-)-
agriculture before commencement of the Act and prior to declaration of the 
master plan-Whether could be excluded from the ambit of 'urban land'. 
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regnlation) Act, 1976, came into force D 
in the respondent-State on 17.2.1976. The appellant claimed exclusion of 
vacant land owned by her, from the ambit of 'urban land' on the ground 
that it was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, as defined in 
Section 2(o) of the Act. The land in question was entered in the revenue 
4 
or land records before the commencement of the Act as for the purpose of E 
agriculture. At the time when the Act came into force there was no master 
y-
plan for the city in which the appellant's laud was situated. However, a 
master plan for the city was made on 24.2.1980, wherein the land in 
dispute was shown. 
,..._. 
The competent authority declared that the appellant bad 19813.83 
F 
sq. mts. of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, but the District Judge 
reduced the area of the excess land to 6738.23 sq. mts. Against the order 
of the District Judge, both sides filed writ petitions. The High Court 
dismissed appellant's writ petition and partly allowed the writ petition of 
the State Government. It held that the appellant's land could not be G 
treated as mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of Explana-
tion (C) because it was shown in the master plan made on 24.2.1980. 
~ 
In the appeals before this Court the correctness of the High Court's 
view was challenged by the appellant and restoration of the District 
Judge's order was sought 
H 
295 
2% 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. Explanation (C) in Section 2(o) of the Urban Land 
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 means that if the land bas been specified 
in the master plan existing at the time of commencement of the Act for a 
pnrpose other than agriculture, then the land should not be deemed to be 
B mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of the Explanation 
and not if the land is specified in a master plan prepared after the 
commencement of the Act. The plain language of Explanation (C) bears 
this construction and requires it to be so construed in order to harmonise 
it with the other provisions and scheme of the Act, e.g. Sections 3 and 5. 
C The master plan defined in Section 2(b) and refei;ed in the definition of 
'urban land' in Section 2(o), including Explanat!on (C) therein, is a 
master plan prepared and in existence at the time .of commencement of the 
Act when by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, rights Of the holder of the land 
under the Act get 'crystallised and extinguish his right to bold any vacant 
D land in excess of the ceiling limit. The proceedings for determining the 
vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit according to the machinery 
provisions in the Act is merely for quantification, and to effectuate the 
rights and .liabilities which have crystallised at the time of commencement 
of the Act. Just as the holder of the land cannot by bis subsequent actions 
reduce the area of the vacant land in excess of the celing limit, the 
E 
authorities too cannot by any subsequent action increase the area of the 
excess vacant land by a similar action. [298G-H, 299A-C] 
-"f 
F 
1.2. The construction made of these provisions by the High Court 
cannot, therefore, be accepted. Accordingly, the order passed by the Dis-
trict Judge determining the area of 6738.23 sq. mts. only as the vacant 
land in excess of the ceiling limit is restored. [299D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 297 & 
298of1993. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1984 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4018/80 and 5174 of 1980. 
_J 
R.K: Khanna, Ms. Abba R. Sharma, Manoj Goel and Pankaj Kalra 
for the Appellant. 
~ 
H 
Ms. Alka Aggrawa\, R.C. Verma, Ashok K. Srivastava for the 
->-
ATIA MOHAMMAD! BEGUM v. STATE OF U.P. [VERMA, J.] 
297 
Respondents. 
A 
The

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