STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. versus N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 06-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF-A.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6. 2001 
B 
[S.B. BHARUCHA, C.J., Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
c 
Urban Development and Town Planning : 
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976-Vacant land-Jn excess 
of ceiling limit-Quantification of-Master plan-Applicability of-Held: Master 
plan prepared even subsequent to enforcement of the Act is to be taken into 
consideration for determination of vacant land. 
Words and Phrases: 
D 
"Master plan"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 2(h) of the Urban Land 
(Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976. 
"Commencement of the Act"-Meaning of-In the context of S.6(1) of 
the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976. 
E 
In this appeal the following question-arose before the Court: 
Whether it is the master plan that was in existence when the Urban 
Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 was enforced, and not the plan 
prepared subsequently, that has to be taken into consideration to deter-
F 
mine if land is vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under the 
Act? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The primary object of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regu-
G 
lations) Act, 1976 was to prevent the concentration of urban land in the 
hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein, and to 
bring about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to 
~ob-serve the common good. [165-C] 
H 
2.1. Development and town planning are ongoing processes and they 
162 
STATE v. N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY 
163 
go on changing from time to time depending upon the local needs. It is 
A 
evident from the definition of the master plan in Section 2(h) that it takes 
in view any plan prepared even subsequent to the coming into force of the 
Act. Further, the explanation to Section 6(1) very significantly provides 
that every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the 
commencement of the Act shall file a statement before the competent 
B 
authority and "the commencement of the Act" under Clause (ii) of Expla-
nation to Section 6(1) would be when the land becomes vacant for any 
-
reason whatsoever. Therefore, the date of commencement of the Act in a 
case where the land, which was not vacant earlier, would be the date on 
which such land becomes vacant land. It thus, contemplates a situation of 
land, not being vacant, becoming vacant due to preparation of a master 
plan subsequent to the date of enforcement of the Act. [171-D-F] 
. Maharani Shantidevi P.Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel, [2001] 5 
sec 101, referred to. 
2.2. The master plan prepared as per law in force even subsequent 
to enforcement of the Act is to be taken into consideration to determine 
whether a particular piece of land is vacant land or not. [171-G] 
Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) v. State of U.P., [1993] 2 SCC 546, 
partly overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3813 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.94 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A. No. 1220 of 1994. 
With 
C.A. Nos. 7238/2001, 1149/85, 10851196 and 7239 of 2001. 
Sudhir Chandra Aggarwal, Ms. K. Amreswari, Anoop G. Choudhary, P. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Chidambaram, Raju Ramachandran, (A.C.), R.F. Nariman, V.A. Mohta, Guntur 
G 
Prabhakar, Ms. T. Anamika, K. Ram Kumar (NP), S.K. Agnihotri, Ms. Geetanjali 
Mohan, A.V. Velayudhan Nair, D.N. Ray, R.N. Karanjawal, Ms. Nandini Gore, 
Ms. Manik Karanjawala, R.N. Keshwani, K. Raghavacharulu, P. Narasimha, 
Ram Lal Roy, Rakesh K. Sharma, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, K. V. Sreekumar, Rajiv 
Nanda, G. Seshagiri Rao, C. Hanumantha Rao, S.U.K. Sagar, K. Ram Kumar, 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
B. Sridhar, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, M. Sridhar, V.G. Pragasam, 
Ms. Anjani Aiyagari and S.V. Deshpande for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. The question for determination in these appeals 
B 
is whether it is the master plan that was in existence when the Urban Land 
(Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') was enforced, and not 
the plan prepared subsequently, that has to be taken into consideration to 
determine if land is vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under 
the Act. 
c 
D 
The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, relying upon the 
decision of a Bench of two Judges in Aria Mohammadi Begum (Smr.) v. State 
of U.P. & Ors., [ 1993] 2 SCC 546, has held that when the land was not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.