STATE OF A.P. versus V. VENKATASWARA RAO (DEAD) BY LR.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 16-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF A.P. 
V. 
V. VENKATASWARA RAO (DEAD) BY LR. 
JANUARY 16, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
C 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 
Section 20(/)(a)-Vacant land-In excess of ceiling limit-Power to 
exempt-Landowner leased out excess vacant land to a company for a period 
of 33 years when there was no prohibition for alienation of vacant land-
State Government granted exemption to the excess vacant land subject to 
D certain conditions including the one that the said land would vest in the State 
Government after expiry of 33 years-High Court struck down the said 
condition-Correctness of-Held: Conditions might be imposed to serve the 
object and purpose of the Act and the exemption order itself-Jn the absence 
of vesting of the land in the State absolutely, the same would revert back to 
E 
the landowner after expiry of the lease-The condition imposed by the State 
Government being severable from other conditions, even after setting it aside, 
the Government Order could be val idly sustained-Hence, no interference 
with the High Court order called for. 
The respondent was holder of excess vacant land as per the 
F provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The 
respondent filed an application under Section 20(J)(a) of the Act claiming 
exemption on the ground that the said vacant land was leased out to a 
company for 33 years. This lease was entered into during the period when 
there was no prohibition for alienation of vacant land. The State 
Government granted exemption to the excess vacant land with certain 
G conditions including the one that the land would vest in the state 
Government aJter the expiry of the lease period. 
H 
Being aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition before the High 
Court. The High Court restored the Government Order but held that the 
538 
--"' ' 
STATE OF A.P. v. V. VENKATASWARA RAO 
539 
condifion that the land would vest in the State Government after 33 years A 
could not be sustained. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Since the excess land was not acquired and no notification 
was published in the official Gazette declaring that the excess land in B 
question be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government, it 
!~ 
could not be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government 
free from all encumbrances under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land 
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as on the date the exemption order was 
issued. After the expiry of the lease period, in the normal course, the land c 
would revert to the respondent, in the absence of vesting of the land in 
the State absolutely, subject to the provisions of Chapter Ill to the extent 
they are applicable. If on account of reverting the land to the respondent 
and his holding exceeded the ceiling limit, the provisions contained in 
Section IS got attracted. In such a case, as per Section 15(2), the provisions 
of Sections 6 to 14 shall, so far as may be, apply to the statement filed D 
under the said Section. The person concerned could avail the rights and . 
protections available to him under Sections 8 to I 0 including exercise of 
option or choice in the matter of retaining the land within the ceiling limit. 
If the condition regarding vesting of the land in the State after expiry of 
the lease period is sustained, it has the effect of taking away the rights 
E 
and protections available under Sections 6 to 14 as far as they apply. 
1551-A-EI 
2.1. The State Government is empowered to impose conditions while 
granting exemption under Section 20 but such conditions cannot run 
contrary to or defeat the provisions of the Act. Conditions may be imposed F 
• 
to serve the object and purpose of the Act and the exemption order itself . 
Furthermore, safeguard is made under Section 20(2) by stating that if any 
conditions imposed while granting exemption are violated, the State 
Government is entitled to withdraw the exemption granted. Further after 
the expiry of lease period if the vacant land reverts to the contesting 
respondent and his holding vacant land exceeds the ceiling limit, he is G 
bound by the provisions of the Act and the action can be taken, if need 
\' 
be, against him according to the provisions of the Act in respect of the 
" 
excess vacant land. 1551-F-H; 552-AI 
2.2. The contention that if the condition regarding vesting of the 
H 
-
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[_2004] I S.C.R. 
A 

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