U.A. BASHEER THR. G.P.A. HOLDER versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 17-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 893
893
U.A. BASHEER THR. G.P.A. HOLDER
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.3032 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – ss.6(1),
8(1),(4), 10(1), (3),(6), 42 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 – ss.3(1)(a), (2), 4, 5 – Joint family property of
two sisters under various Survey Nos. including Survey No.53/3A –
Partition of the property alleged in 1984 between their children,
one of whom filed statement u/s.6(1) declaring the particulars of
the joint family property – Competent Authority issued a draft
statement to the declarant to surrender excess vacant land including
land falling within Survey No.53/3A – Objection filed – Eventually,
land in inter alia Survey No.53/3A was declared as excess land –
Appellant claims to have purchased a portion of Survey No.53/3A
comprising a house (suit property) in 1994 from the daughter of
one of the sisters who had allegedly acquired it by virtue of the
aforesaid partition – Appellant filed petition under the Repeal Act,
1999 for his name to be restored in the records instead of the
government’s – Petition rejected by Competent Authority –
Appellant’s writ petition and appeal dismissed in High Court – Held:
Determination of excess land is to be made considering the status
of the land at the time of commencement of the Principal Act and
not at the time of filing of the declaration – Since, admittedly the
partition, if any, was only effected after the Principal Act’s
commencement, the Division Bench correctly held that the partition
deed of 1984 would not affect the validity of the Competent
Authority’s determination of excess land owned by the joint family
at the time of commencement of the Act – To this limited extent,
findings of the Division Bench concurred with – However, there is
nothing on record to conclusively establish possession of the suit
property either by the Competent Authority or the appellant –
Conflicting averments made by parties – It was incumbent on the
Division Bench to enquire into and settle the questions of fact –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remitted to the Division Bench
to consider the case afresh.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – ss. 6, 8, 9,
10 – Held: ss.8 and 9 make it incumbent on the Competent Authority
to issue notice to or provide an opportunity to be heard only to the
‘person concerned’, i.e., the person who has filed the statement u/
s.6 – Claims of all other persons interested in the vacant land are to
be considered through issuing a Gazetted notification as per s.10(1)
– Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 (Principal Act) came into force in Karnataka on 17.02.1976.
Section 6 of the Principal Act requires that a statement be filed
before the Competent Authority by ‘every person holding vacant
land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the
Act…’. Thus, the determination of ‘excess land’ is to be made
considering the status of the land at the time of commencement
of the Principal Act, and not at the time of filing of the declaration.
Since it is an admitted fact that the partition, if any, was only effected
after the Principal Act’s commencement, the Division Bench was
correct in holding that the partition deed dated 9.01.1984 would
not affect the validity of the Competent Authority’s determination
of excess land owned by the joint family at the time of
commencement of the Act. Hence, to this limited extent,
this Court concurs with the findings of the Division Bench.
[Paras 3, 13][896-H; 901-A-C]
1.2 Section 8 and Section 9 of the Principal Act make it
incumbent on the Competent Authority to issue notice to or
provide an opportunity to be heard only to the ‘person
concerned’, i.e., the person who has filed the statement under
Section 6 of the Principal Act. The claims of all other persons
interested in the vacant land are to be considered through issuing
a Gazetted notification to that effect as per Section 10(1) of the
Principal Act. The Competent Authority had duly issued such
notification on 27.10.1995. [Para 14][901-D-E]
1.3 It is the Appellant’s contention that, subsequent to the
declaration, he acquired the suit property from ‘Smt. LS’
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
895
(appellant’s vendor), by sale 

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