STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ETC. versus L.J. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 08-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

897 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
L.J.-JOHNSONIAND ANOTHER, ETC. 
September 8, 1983 _ 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.) 
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976-Sec. 4(9) read with s. 2(g) 
(ii) and (iU)-lnterpretation of-Land-Partly built and Partly· open-Principles 
A 
D 
for determining the ceiling are~. Holding of separate plot of open land not 
C 
necessary to attracts. 4(9). 
Words & Phrases-
1/and appurtenant', and •appurtenances'-explained. 
Thefast respondent in civil appeal No. 2005 of -1982 had a parcel of 
land measuring 2530 sq. metres with a building coilstructed on. a small portion 
of it. in an urban agglomeration falling within category D specifiCd in Schedule 
I of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, As ihe aforesaid 
first respondent wanted to sell some portion of the open land, he sought 
permission from the competent authority for that purpose. The competent 
authority refused to give permi~sion on the ground that the total area of land 
in-his· possession exceeded ~he- cieling ~imit of 2000 sq. metres prescribed by 
the Act for that area. In appeal the District Judge held that the first 
respondent was entitled to exclude 500 sq. metres in view of the bye-laws 
prevailing in that area and another 500 sq. metres for the beneficial_ and con~ 
venient enjoyment of the building to satisfy the requirement of the town 
pl.inning and environmental_purposes and since after 'excluding these portions 
of the areas there was no excess and the land was not covered by the Act, the 
refusal of permission by the competent authority was not legally valid. In. a 
writ petition filed by the State the High Court strongly relied ·on the provisions 
of s. 4(9) read with.s. 2. 2(q)(ii) of the A.ct and upheld the decision of the 
District Judge. The State challenged the l-Iigh Court's interpretation of the 
principles laid down in the Act for computini the ceiling area. The facts of 
other appeals and petitions were similar. 
Allowing the appeals and petitions; disapproving the view taken by the 
District Judge and the High Court; laying - down the method of computing the 
ceiling area and sending back the cases to con1petent authority ~o get fresh 
. computations done, 
HELD : It is clear that there can be only three categories of Urban 
·]ands-
(1) land Which is entirely open in the sense that it doe~ not contain 
any construction of building, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[J 983) 3 8.C.R, 
(2) where the entire land is covered by building or dweiling 
house, and 
(3) land on a part of which there is a building with or without a 
dwelling unit thereon and the rest of the land is vacant. [907 F-H] 
So far as the first category is concerned, no complexity is involved 
because any open area in excess of 2000 sq. metres in category D States will be 
taken over by the Government. For instance, if an open land without cons· 
truction consists of 6000 sq. metres, the computation of the ceiling area would 
present no difficulty because 4000 sq. metres will be taken over by the Gover.ll-
ment and 2000 sq. metres will be left to the landholder. Secondly, ii the entire 
land is covered by a building, such an area would completely fall outside the 
ambit of the Act and· no question of computation would arise. Thirdly, a 
question arises as to what would happen if there is a Jahd on a part of which 
there is a btiilding with a dwelling unit and ah area (open land) which is 
appurtenant thereto is vacant. Section 4(9) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Re 
gulation) Act, 1976 provides for meeting such a.contingency. 
[907 H, 908 A-CJ 
Section 4(9) contemplates. that if a. person holds yacant land as aJso 
other portion of land oil which there is a building with a dwe11ing unit, the 
extent ofland occupied by. the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall 
be taken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land. This sub-
section has to be read in conjunction with s. 2. (q) (ii) and (iii), which defines 
•vacant land'. [908 D-G] 
The plain language in which sub-s. (9) of s. 4 had been expressed clearly 
shows that when the legislature used. the word 'appurtenant', it meant to 
qualify the land which was occupied by the building. 
The words 'appuftenant 
thereto' qualify the building which precedes the land. Tf.e expression appurte-
nant' shows that the legislature intended that in taking into consideration the 
land, it must be the land not contiguous

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