LexT.R. THANDUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
T.R. THANDUR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
APRIL 8, 1996
f.1.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCl-lA AND
KS. PARIPOORNAN, J.1.J
Urba11 Land (Ceiling a11d Regulatio11) Acf 1976-Ss. 20(J)(a) a11d
(b )---E.xemptio11 of la11d from applicability of the A ct-Supreme Cowt i11 S.
C
Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka, {1993/ 3 SCC 467 holding that state govem-
nzent cannot give exen1ption to vacant land in excess of ceiling linzit for the
'
purpose of transfer-State actio11 based on the decisio11 chal/e11ged-Whether
transfer of a11y pait of vaca11t excess land exempted u11der s.20( 1) (b) could
be prohibited i1TC.1pective of the co11ditions of gra11t of exe111ptio11-Held, no;
D such a construction would rew1ite the provision and was in1pe11nissible; S.
Vasudeva 1101 based 011 con·ect constntctio11 of s.2!>-Constitution of India,
Article 141-lnterpretatio11 of Statutes.
Admi11istrative Law-Urba11 La11d (Celing and Regulation) Act
E
1976-Ss.20(J)(a) a11d (b)-Power to exempt land in excess of ceiling
limil-Held, valid exercise of power of the state to p:empt la11d must satisfy
the ntle of non-arbitrariness and requires recording of reasons in w1it-
ing-Constitution of India-A1ticle 14.
F
The petitioner booked a Oat in a building constructed on the excess
vacant land belonging to the third respondent and exempted under
s.20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('Act')
in Bangalore. Under the agreement the petitioner was to purchase the
flat togethCI' with 1/48 share in the land on which the building was to
be constructed by the fourth respondent. Despite taking necessary steps,
G the petitioner was informed by the fourth respondent that in view of the
order of the Karnataka High Court, based on the decision of this court
in S. Vasudeva v. State of Kamataka, [1993] 3 SCC 467, transfer of any
part of the excess vacant land in respect of which exemption was granted
under S. 20(1)(b) of the Act was prohibited. The petitioner then filed a
H Writ Petition in this court under Article 32 of the Constitution challeng-
26
T.R. THANDUR v. U.0.1.
27
ing the action and questioning the correctness of the decision in S.
A
Vasudeva.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The effect of the 11011-obstante clause at the beginning
of sub-section (i) and the concluding words in clauses (a) and (b)
undoubtedly was that on exemption being granted subject to the condi-
tions specified in the order granting the exemption, such vacant land
was exempted from the provisions of Chapter III which contained Ss3
to 24, in spite of the provisions in Ss. 3 to 19. There was no ambiguity
B
in this behalf in sub-section (1). The plain language of the provision left C
no room for any ambiguity. Thus, if the logical outcome of the exemption
granted subject to the specified conditions was to lift the restriction on
transfer of the exempted land, then it had to be accepted. [44-A-C]
1.2. To hold that any land exempted under clause (b) cannot be D
transferred irrespective of the conditions of the exemption is to rewrite
the provision which enacted that, subject to the conditions specified in
)
the order of exemption, such vacant land wonld be exempt from the
provisions of Chapter Ill, which meant the exemption was also from
.... " l
provisions prohibiting transfer enacted in Chapter III. [48-G-H]
13. The conclusion reached in S. Vasudeva which directly relates
to s.20(1)(b) of the Act, was not based on a correct construction of s.20
of the Act. The application of that conclusion in relation to clause (a)
of sub-section 20 by the Government of Kamataka is not justified even
E
by that decision. [49-E-F]
F
S. Vasudeva v. State of Kamataka, [1993] 3 SCC 467, overruled.
2.1. State action must satisly the rule of non-arbitrariness and
recording of reasons in writing for granting exemption under clause (a)
of s. 20(1) of the Act indicating that it is necessary or expedient in the G
public interest so to do, is an essential requirement of valid exercise of
power under clause (a). [46-C-D]
2.2. The enactment of the proviso in clause (b) was to emphasise
the requirement that there must be strong reasons recorded in writing H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
to justify the satisfaction of the State Government that the hardship
caused by the aplication of the provisions of Chapter III to such person
amounts to "undue hardship" so that the grant of exemption is judiciExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.