Bengal Vs. Smt.
Maya Dutta & Ors  INSC 382 (3 April 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
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.
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
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.
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 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.
this finding, the appeal is, disposed of. No costs.