Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. MAYA DUTTA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
Tapas Ray, Sr.Adv. and Rathin Das, Adv. with him for
the appellant
D.K. Nag, Parijat Sinha and N.R. Choudhary, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, made
on May 18, 1981 dismissing the Civil Order No.1453/81.
Smt. Maya Datta had purchased 1065 sq. ft. of land
under sale deed dated February 19, 1976, after the Urban
Land (Ceiling of Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the "Act")
had come into force, from Bangrur Land Development
Corporation Ltd., a private agency. She also had purchased
some other properties with which we are not concerned. She
applied for permission under Section 27(2) of the Act for
sale of the building constructed on the land. Though the
competent authority had refused permission under Section
27(3) of the Act, on appeal under Section 33, the appellate
authority granted her permission which was questioned by the
State in the revision. The High Court dismissed the same.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
It is not clear whether Bangur Land Development
Corporation Ltd., a private agency was in possession of
excess vacant land under the Act. The primary question that
required to be decided by the competent authority and the
appellate authority was : whether the said agency was within
the ceiling limit computing the land in question alienated
to Smt. Maya Datta. If it were to be held that the said
agency was in possession of the land within the ceiling
limit, necessarily, the sale made in favour of Smt. Maya
Datta in question is in accordance with the law. In that
perspective, whether Smt. Maya Datta was within the ceiling
limit or not is not material. The permission, therefore, for
alienation is required to be granted in the light of the law
laid down by this Court in Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji
Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1981) 1 SCC 1661]. Therefore,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the purchase and grant of permission to Smt. Maya Datta, to
that extent become valid. However, it is left open to be
considered by the competent authority whether the alienation
of the land in question to Smt. Maya Datta, is subject to
decision by the competent authority that Bangur Land
Development Corporation Ltd. was within the ceiling limit
equally of Maya Datta. In the event of the competent
authority deciding that the Bangur Land Development
Corporation Ltd. was in excess of the ceiling limit to the
extent of land sold by that authority to the respondent,
Smt. Maya Datta would be required to be computed as part of
the holding of Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd. and
the purchaser from Maya Datta is also bound by it, equally
of Maya Dutta. Hence, appropriate action is required to be
taken against the said agency.
With this finding, the appeal is, disposed of. No
costs.