STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SURENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 18-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
--+-
SURENDRA KUMAR AND ANR. 
' 
JANUARY 18, 1995 
B 
[K.RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regu.lation) Act, 1976-Sections 27(1), 
• 
25(2)(a), 5(3) and 10(4}-Application seeking permission to alienate 
..._ 
land-Competent Authority exercising its option to purchase proper-
c ty-Legality. of-Whether State could purchase property though declaration 
was not finalised-Held, yes--lntending purchaser cannot complain against 
exercise of option by State. 
An application was submitted before the competent authority seek-
D 
Ing permission to alienate land to respondent. The competent authority 
exercised option to purchase the property. The owner executed the sale 
~ 
deed in favour of the State in respect of the property which was agreed to 
be sold to the first respondent. The first respondent filed a writ pefttion 
in the High Court impugning the legality of the purchase made by the 
government. The High Court held that until the ceiling proceedings were 
E completed in accordance with law and the surplus area was determined, 
the owner was not entitled to sell the land and thus purchase of the land 
by the government was not valid in law. Hence this appeal by the State. 
The respondent submitted that sub s.(3) of section 5 of Urban Land 
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 prohibited a person from alienating 
fr 
F any vacant land by way of sale, etc., until he had furnished the statement 
• 
u/s 6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him had 
beea published and any such transfer made in contravention thereof shall 
be deemed to be null and void. It was next contended that since the land 
proposed to be sold was within the ceiling limit, no permission u/s 27(1) 
G was needed. It was alleged that since the owner died and the legal repre-
sentatives had not been brought on record, the appeal stood abated. 
l ->-
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
, 
HELD : 1.1. After the application seeking permission to alienate the 
H · land by a person has been made, two options are open to the competent 
396 
STATEOFM.P.v. S.KUMAR 
397 
authority. In a case where the State· intends to purchase the property A 
exercising its option, there is.no prohi.bition for the State to purchase the 
,..... 
property, though the declaration has not been finalised and exercise of 
option as envisaged under sub-s. (S)(a) of s.27 and complete the sale 
transaction in the manner contemplated therein. Thereafter they can 
finalise the excess area include the area purchased by it while as calculat· B 
ing excess land as the total holding of the person and accept only other 
excess area held by the person and deduct the land or building purchased 
by it from the ceiling area which the person is entitled to retain under the 
i 
Act. (400-A, BJ 
The second option is that since the proceedings have not been c 
finalised, either to return the application, the draft declared should be 
taken up and declaration should be finalised and thereafter the option can 
be exercised to purchase the land and building or to permit the sale of the 
land to the third parties. [ 400-C] 
In the instant case, the State exercised the first option and pur- D 
chased the property. There was no illegality in the exercise of the option 
by the State to purchase the property sought to be sold by the owner. The 
respondent, being only an intending purchaser, could not complain that 
until the draft proceedings were finalised and the declaration under sub-
s.(3) of Section 10 had been published, the State could not exercise the E 
option to purchase the property. [400-D, E] 
1.2. The proposed vendor had not objected to the exercise of the 
option. She had already soid the land to the State Government and only 
~ 
the intending purchaser had objected to it. Therefore, on the death of 
owner even when her legal representatives were not brought on record, the F 
t· 
appeal had not been abated. [400-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4452 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order ~ated 22.9.81 of the Madhya Pradesh G 
High Court in Misc. P.No. 271of1980. 
A. 
U .N: Bachawat, Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appel-
lants. 
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents. 
H 
I 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division 
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 27

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