P. Rama Krishna vs Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad

B.Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge confirming the orders passed by the authorities, be it primary or appellate, under the provisions of Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant holds urban properties within Vijayawada urban agglomeration. He was obligated to file a declaration and he did so. He had declared that he held 1 / 3rd share out of 4261 sq. mtrs. in T.S. No. 29/3 of Vijayawada; 1/3rd share in 919-74 sq. mtrs. with building thereon and 1 /3rd share in 167-23 sq. mtrs. with building thereon, both situated in Ward No. 22 of Vijayawada. The same was verified by the Officer concerned and a draft statement u/s 8(1) along with a notice u/s 8(3) of the Act were served on the appellant calling for his objections. In the said statement, 2854 sq. mtrs. in the first item, 290 sq. mtrs. in the second item and 57 sq. mtrs. in the third item making out a total of 3201 sq. mtrs, was sought to be computed to the holding of the appellant. The objections raised by the appellant to the above proposed computation were negatived and computation was made accordingly. The appeal against the same was also unsuccessful. The appellant then filed a writ petition, but the learned single Judge had confirmed the above orders of computation. Hence, this Writ Appeal.

Mr. T. Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the computation of 1023 sq. mtrs. out of the first item and taking into consideration of items 2 and 3 for computation under the Act are unsustainable. Mr. K. Ashok Reddy, the learned Government Pleader, contends otherwise, and submits that the computation made by the authorities and confirmed by the learned single Judge does not call for any interference.

This being a writ appeal, we do not wish to enter into any disputed fact finding. On admitted facts, we proceed to consider the legal submissions. Legality of inclusion of 1023 sq. mtrs. as also items 2 and 3 on which, admittedly, there were structures as on the date of the commencement of the Act, falls for consideration while construing the provisions contained under Sections 2(q) and 4(9) read with Section 4(11) of the Act. Section 2(q) of the Act defines ''vacant land'' as land, not being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not inclued--

(i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated;

(ii) in an area where there are building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority and the land appurtenant to such building; and

(iii) in an area where there are no building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on, the appointed day and the land appurtenant to such building;

"Land appurtenant" is defined u/s 2(g) of the Act. Treating such of those lands with structure as on the date of commencement of the Act or protected u/s 4(11), as non-vacant lands and construing Sections 4(9) and 4(11) of the Act, the Supreme Court rendered an authoritative judgment in Smt. Meera Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and others, that while computing the holding of vacant land of a person, building and the appurtenant land thereto shall be excluded. As such, the properties under items 2 and 3 stand automatically exempted and they cannot be computed for the purpose of determining the vacant land held by the appellant. In so far as the vacant land of 2854 sq. mtrs. computed to the holding of the appellant, which is mentioned under item No. 1, is concerned, an area of 1023 sq. mtrs. was earmarked in the master plan for the purpose of formation of a ring road and the said master plan was sanctioned by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 958 M.A. dated 16-12-1969 and was gazetted in A. P. Gazette No. 3, dated 15-1-1970. ''Master Plan'' is defined u/s 2(h) of the Act and the same was interpreted authoritatively in Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others[OVERRULED], that ''master plan'' means master plan which was prepared and existing as on the date of the commencement of the Act and not the master plan prepared thereafter. As such, the master plan mentioned above which was sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 958, dated 16-12-1969 and gazetted on 15-1-1970 and which was existing as on the date of the commencement of the Act, if taken retrospectively from 28-1-1976 or prospectively from 17-2-1976, holds the field. The computation under the Act is governed by the user mentioned in the said master plan and when in the master plan, it was earmarked for formation of ring road, the above land was not capable for making any construction and consequently, was not a vacant land within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act. Further, it is not disputed that pursuant to the said user mentioned in the said master plan, the above land was taken over by initiating land acquisition proceedings. The learned Judge mainly relied on the fact that the land acquisition proceedings were in the year 1984, but the said fact has got no relevance for construing the land as a vacant land in the context of the Act. What is material for construing a land as a vacant land under the provisions of the Act is as to whether the land was vacant land as on the date of the commencement of the Act and as u/s 2(q) of the Act, a land cannot be a vacant land on which construction of building is not permissible and as the above land of 1023 sq. mtrs. was earmarked for-formation of ring road, construction of building was not permissible and as such, it was not vacant land. In the circumstances, the said area of 1023 sq. mtrs. is also liable for exclusion from computation. On such exclusion, the vacant land held by the appellant comes to 1831 sq. mtrs. In Vijayawada urban agglomeration, one ceiling area is 1500 sq. mtrs. which can be retained by a person. If this area, of 1500 sq. mtrs. is excluded, the remaining land will be 331 sq. mtrs. which is an excess land held by the appellant under the provisions of Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the said area of 331 sq. mtrs. is liable to be surrendered by the appellant to the Government. The Writ Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.

Appeal allowed.