SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT ALJTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILINGS, HYDERABAD AND ANR. versus P.S. RAO

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 17-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AlJTHORITY, URBAN 
A 
LAND CEILINGS, HYDERABAD AND ANR. 
v. 
P.S. RAO 
JANUARY 17, 2000 
(M. JAGANNADHA RAO AI'ID A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: Sections 2(1) 2(q), 
4(9), 6, 10, 20(l)(a), 20(1)(b), 21and22. 
Land Laws-Declaration of excess land and vesting of same in the 
State--Thereafter application for grant of exemption under Section 
20( 1 )(b J-f'ermissibility of-High Court held that application under Section 
B 
c 
20 was maintainable even after an order of vesting of excess land was passed 
under Section JO-Appeal before Supreme Cou~eld no interference was 
called for with the order of High Court- -It is only after the excess land is D 
actually determined under Section JO that a person can know the exact extent 
of excess land in his holding and think of asldng for exemption-There may, 
of course, be some cases where the extent is so large that a claimant may be 
able to seek exemption even at the time of filing the declaration but even in 
those cases, he cannot be definite about the actual extent of excess lan~The E 
definition of the words 'to hold' in Section 2( 1) cannot be applied in the 
context of Section 20(l)(a) or Section 20(1)(b). 
T.R. Thandur v. Union of lndia & Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 690; Darothi 
Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1996] 9 SCC 
633 and State of A.P. represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, 
Hyderabad v. Valium Venkateswara Rao, (1997) 3 ALT 417, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition No. 
1662 of 2000. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A. No. 1696 of 1998. 
P.P. Rao, B. Sridhar and Y.S. Rao for the Petitioners. 
D.A. Dave and S.U.K. Sagar for the Respondent. 
257 
H 
258 
SUPREME CO CRT REPORTS 
[20C0] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Heard counsel on both sides. Li:arned counsel for the State of 
Andhra Pradesh has contended before us that an application for grant of 
B exemption under Section 2U(I)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula-
tion) Act, 1976 is not maintainable once the excess land has been declared 
and the excess land has vested in the State under Section 10, in as much 
as the declarant cannot be said to be 'holding" the land any longer. 
Reliance is placed on Section 2( 1) which defines the words 'to hold'. 
c 
We are unable to accept the above contention. The scheme of the 
Act is that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has 
to filt: a declaration under Section 6. Vacant land is defined in Section 2( q) 
as not including land on which construction is not permissible under 
building regulations, land occupied by building, before the due date or 
D under construction. Section 2(q) defines urban land as urban land which 
is referred to as such in master plan etc. but does not include agricultural 
land. As to what is the relevant 'master plan' there are some decisions of 
this Court. Detailed procedure is specified in the Act as to how individuals, 
families, firms, companies etc. are to file declarations. As to what is to be 
done if land is held in different capacities or land with limited rights, like 
E lessee, mortgagee etc. various provisions are made. Section 4(9) deals with 
person holding land with building and other vacant land. Section 4(9) has 
been the subject matter of some decisions of thi~ Court. 
All these provisions require detailed computation based on the facts 
p of each case. In addttion, the effect of several judgments of the Courts are 
to be considered by the authority. Therefore, it is obvious that at the time 
when the declaration is filed a person may or may not be in a position to 
know definitely whether he can be said to be in possession of the excess 
vacant land or not, or even if he can believe he is in possession of excess 
land, how much land is liable to be surrendered exactly. This is because of 
G the fact as pointed above, there are various provisions in the statute which 
provide statutory deduction and computation and unless the final computa-
tion is made, it is indeed difficult to say whether there is excess or even if 
there is excess, as to what is the extent of the excess land. Unless the 
qua.itum of excess land, after the statutory deductions etc. is arrived at, 
H one cannot, in our opinion, decide whether to surrender the excess land or 
SPL OFFICER URBAN

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