Holding

The Supreme Court held that the land is subject to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and that the determination of its applicability must be made by the Special Officer‑cum‑Competent Authority, not by the High Court.

Summary

The respondents purchased parcels of land that were agricultural on the appointed day of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and later converted them to residential use after a master plan amendment. They applied to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for layout approval, which was conditioned on a No Objection Certificate under the Act, but the certificate was not granted. While the High Court held that the land lay outside the Act’s purview because it was outside the master plan on the appointed day, the Division Bench affirmed that view and directed the authority to sanction the layout. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court held that the amendment of the master plan and conversion to residential use bring the land within the Act, and that the question of applicability must be decided by the Special Officer‑cum‑Competent Authority, not by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the authority was directed to decide the matter within three months, without the Court’s earlier directive to bypass the statutory process.

Issues considered

Whether land originally agricultural but later included in a master plan and converted to residential use falls within the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Whether the High Court can direct a statutory authority to sanction a layout plan without obtaining the required No Objection Certificate under the Act.
How the provisions of Sections 2(n), 2(o), 5(3), 6(1) and the explanation to Section 6(1) of the Act should be interpreted with respect to the commencement date and vacancy of land.
Whether an amendment to a master plan can alter the nature of land for the purposes of the Act.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 28(a), s. 2(h), s. 2(n), s. 2(o), s. 5(3), s. 6(1), s. 6(2)

Subjects

Urban land ceilingMaster plan amendmentStatutory authority jurisdictionWrit petitionLand conversionApplicability of statuteCeiling limit

Judgment

GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. A
V.

J. SRIDEVI AND ORS.

APRIL 12, 2002

[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B

Tenancy Laws:

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Section 2(n) A(i),
5(3) r!w Section 28(a) and Schedule I Column 2-Land-Originally agricultural C
and falling outside master plan in force on the appointed day-By subsequent
amendment master plan extended to the Land-Applicability ofthe provisions-
Plea that the provisions are not applicable on the land since, the original
nature of land cannot be altered by subsequent amendment-Rejected-
Provisions held applicable. D
Constitution of India : 1950, Art. 226.

Application filed before statutory authority-During pendency writ
petition filed-High Court deciding applicability ofstatute-Held, High Court
not justified, since statutory authority vested with power to determine the E
same-Administrative Latv.

Respondents purchased the land in question which at the ti111e of
commencement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was an
agricultural land. The land wa_s converted for residential purpose after
payment of requisite fee. Respondents thereafter applied to Hyderabad Urban F
Development Authority (BUDA) for sanction of lay-out plan and group
housing scheme, but the same demanded 'No Objection' Certificate under
the Act. Respondents filled application before Special Officer•cum-Competent
Authority alleging that the land was outside the purview of the Act as they
were holding land to the extent of 1000 sq. mtrs. and prayed for grant of G
certificate to that effect. The certificate was not granted.

During pendency of the application before the Competent Authority,
respondents filed writ petition praying for direction to BUDA to sanction
layout and group housing scheme as the lands owned by them were outside

1147
H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A the preview of the Act. Appellant-State contended that since the land was
included within the Urban Agglomeration, any transaction without clearance
as required under the Act was invalid. Respondents contended that the land
could not be said to be within Urban Agglomeration since the same was
originally agricultural land and was not covered by any master plan, extension
B of master plan to a particular area by way of amendment cannot alter the
nature of the land; and that the land became urban in order to come within
the purview of the Act only after it was converted into residential zone, and
since they were individually holding about 1000 sq. mtrs., it was within the
ceiling limit prescribed under the Act.

C Single Judge of the High Court held that since the land was situated
outside the master plan in force on the appointed day, the provisions of the
Act would not be attracted to the same.

In appeal, Division Bench upheld the decision of Single Jud~e and
directed HUDA to pass layout plan without insisting for 'No Objection'
D certificate. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
'
HELD: 1. Division Bench was not justified in declaring that the lands I
owned by these respondents were outside the purview of the provisions of the
E Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and also further directing
HUDA to sanction forthwith the layout and the group housing scheme
submitted by the respondents. [1154-G]

State of A.P. and Ors. v. N. Audikesava Reddy and Ors., [2002] 1 sec
227, relied on.
F
Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) v. State of UP. and Ors., [1993] 2 sec
546, referred to.

2.1. When the applications were pending before the special Officer-cum-
G Competent Authority, the High Court should have directed the authority to ·"'I
I
take an appropriate decision. When a statutory authority is vested with power
to determine the question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act,
t
it is ordinarily desirable to leave the question to be decided by such authority.
The aggrieved party can file appeal against the decision within the framework
provided under the Statute and the ultimate decision also could be challenged
H under judicial review, if permitted in law. Instead of undergoing the normal
GOVT. OF A.P. v. J. SRIDEVI [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 1149

procodure, the respondents herein directly approached the High Court for A
the reliefs sought for by them. [1155-C-DJ

2.2. AU the rival contentions by the appellants and respondents are to
be decided by Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority. In view of the
various provisions contained in the relevant enactments this is not a case where
the High Court should have directed BUDA to pass the layout plans without B
insisting for "No Objection" certificate from the Special Officer-cum-
Competent Authority. [1155-E-GJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7348 of
2001.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 22. I 0.98 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P No. 968 of 1998.

Sudhir Chandra, Ms. K. Amareshwari, G. Prabhakar and A. Dwivedi
for the Appellants.
D
Shanti Bhushan, A.K. Ganguli, G. Seshagiri Rao, C. Hanumantha Rao,
Sanjay Pathak, S.U.K. Sagar, R.N. Keshwani, B. Sridhar and K. Ram Kumar
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. This appea! is preferred by the State of
Andhra Pradesh challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 968 of 1998. By the impugned
Judgment of the Division Bench, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition no. 5929/97 was confirmed. The Writ Petition was filed by
the respondents praying that the lands owned by the respondents were outside F
the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter
being referred as "UL(C&R) Act") and that the Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority (hereinafter being referred as "HUDA") be directed to sanction the
lay-out and group housing scheme submitted by the respondents, without
insisting for clearance certificate from the competent authority under the G
UL(C&R) Act. The Writ Petition was allowed and the State unsuccessfully
challenged the judgment therein, in the Writ Appeal.

The respondents herein purchased an extent of I 0 guntas of land each
in Survey no. 79 of Madapur village by separate registered sale deeds in the
year 1995. These lands originally belonged to one Agaiah Dhanger and his H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A family who owned 96 acres of land in Survey No. 79 of Madapur village.
1)1.e original larid owner Agaiah Dhanger was served with a notice under
Section 6(2) of the Act alleging that the land owned by him came within the
purview of the UL(C&R) Act. He did not respond to the notice by filing a
statement in Form-I, as contemplated under Section 6(1) of the UL(C&R)
Act. It seems that the original landlord thereafter sold these properties to the
B respondents herein. The land was originally classified as agricultural land
and the respondents after purchasing the property filed application for
converting the same for residential purpose and the Government by G.O.Ms ..
No. 467 M.A. dated 3.9.1996 granted permission to convert the same for
residential purposes by collecting the requisite fee towards development
C charges. The respondents thereafter filed application before the HUDA for
sanction of lay-out. HUDA as well as the District Registrar insisted for
clearance certificate from the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority under
the UL(C&R) Act, but the respondents alleged that individually they were
owning 1000 square meters and even if it comes under the. purview of the
UL(C&R) Act, it is within the prescribed ceiling limit. The respondents
D approached the Special Officer-cum-Co~petent Authority, but no clearance
certificate was issued by the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority and
thereafter they filed the Writ Petition.

The lands in Survey No. 79 including other Sy. Nos. covering an extent
E of 96 acres in Madapur village formed part of Moosapet Gram Panchayat. It
is contended by the appellants that village Madapur formed part of Moosapet
Gram Panchayat which is included in Col. 2 of Schedule-I of UL(C&R) Act,
1976 and according to Section 2(n) at Para (A) [I] of the UL(C&R) Act, it
formed part of the Urban Agglomeration specified in Col. 2 of Schedule-I of
the UL(C&R) Act and the appellants contended that as the land was included
F within the Urban Agglomeration, any transaction without clearance as required
under Section 5(3) read with Section 28(a) of the UL(C&R) Act was invalid.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended before the learned Single
Judge that at the time of purchase, the land in question was an agricultural
land and on the date of purchase effected by the respondents, there was no
G legal restriction for the transfer of agricultural land situated in the peripheral
area. According to the respondents, the land in question was neither an urban
land nor a vacant land and the provisions of the UL (C&R) Act, 1976 do not
apply. The contention of the respondents was that on the appointed day, i.e.,
28.1.1976, the lands held by the vendors were agricultural lands and it was
not covered by any master plan and the extension of the master plan by way
H of amendment to a particular area which ·was not included when the UL
GOVT. OF AP. v. J. SRJDEVI [K.G. BALA.KRISHNAN, J.] 1151

(C&R) Act came into force, cannot alter the original nature of the land. The A
contention of the respondents was that the master plan which was amended
- 1
on 26.8.1995 had no application and the same cannot be used for the purpose
for determining whether the land in question is coming within the purview
of UL(C&R) Act or not. The respondents had also contended that pursuant
to the request made by them after paying the requisite fee, the lands were B
converted into residential zone as per G.O.Ms. No. 467 dated 3.9.1996 and
only on that date the land became urban land coming within the purview of
the UL(C&R) Act and as these respondents were individually holding about
1000 square meters, it is within the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act.

The Urban Land & Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 came into force in the C
State of Andhra Pradesh on 17.2.1976. Section 2(h) of the UL (C&R) Act
deals with the "master plan" in relation to the area within Urban
Agglomeration.

Section 2(h) defines 'master plan' as follows:-
D
" 'Master plan' in relation to an area within an urban agglomeration
or any part thereof, means the plan (by whatever name called) prepared
under any law for the time being in force or in pursuance of an order
made by the State Government for the development of such area or
part thereof and providing for the stages by which such development
shall be carried out." E
Section 2(n) defines Urban agglomeration as:

"urban agglomeration" -

(A) in relation to any State or Union territory specified in Col. (l) F
of Schedule I, means,-

(i) the urban agglomeration specified in the corresponding entry
in Col. (2) thereof and includes the peripheral area specified
in the corresponding entry in Col. (3) thereof; and

(ii) any other area which the State Government may, with the G
previous approval of the Central Government, having regard
to its location, population (population being more than one
lakh) and such other relevant foe.tors as the circumstances
of the case may require, by notification in the official
Gazette, declare to be an urban agglomeration and any H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A agglomeration so declared shall be deemed to belong to
category D in that Schedule and the peripheral area therefor
shall be one kilometer;
~

(B) in relation to ariy other State or Union territory, means any area
which the State Government may, with the previous approval
B of the Central Government, having regard to its location,
popufation (populatfon being .more than one lakh) and such
other relevant factors as the circumstances .of the case may
require, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be an
urban agg.lomeration and any agglomeration so declared shall
c be deemed to belong to category D in Sch. I and peripheral
area therefor shall be one kilometer."

Under Section 2(o) "Urban Land" means:

(i) any land sitliated within the liinits of an urban agglomeration
and referred to as such in the master. plan; or
D
(ii) · in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master
plan does not ·refer to any land as urban land, any lan,d within
;;.
..:-. the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area ;..
included within the local limits of a municipality (by wl\atever
name called) a notified area committee, a town area committee,
E
a city and town· committee, a ·small town committee, a
cantonment board .or a panchayat

but does not include any such land which is mainly used fo~ the
purpose of agriculture.
F
Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause and Cl. (q),

(A) "agriculture" includes horticulture; but does not include-,

(i) raising of grass, (ii) dairy farming (iii) poultry farming (iv)
breeding of live-sto.ck, and (v) such cultivation, or the
G growing of such plant, as may be prescribed;

(B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of t
agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land
records before the appointed day as for the purpose of
·H agriculture;
GOVT. OF A.P. v. J. SRIDEYI [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, .I] 1153

Provided that where on any land which is entered in the A
revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the
purpose of agriculture there is a building which is not in the
nature of a farm-house then, so much of the extent of such land
as is occupied by the building shall not be deemed to be used
mainly for the purpose of agriculture;
B
Provided further that if any question arises whether any
• building is in the nature of a farm-house such question shall be
referred to the State Government and the decision of the State
Government thereon shall be final;

(C) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of this C
Explanation land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the
purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the
master plan for a purpose other than agriculture."

According to the appellants, in the master plan, the land involved herein
is brought under the Urban Agglomeration. Therefore, the question arises D
whether the property included in the Urban Agglomeration could be treated
• as urban land or continues to be an agricultural land. On the date of
commencement of the Act, i.e. on 17 .2.1976, the land was agricultural land.
It is possible to contend that at that time the UL(C&R) Act had no application
to these lands. The question that came up for decision before the learned E
Single Judge was whether by the inclusion of this land in the Urban
Agglomeration under the master plan, the property would still continue to be
excluded from the purview of the UL(C&R) Act, 1976. The learned Single
Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) ·
v. State ofU.P. and Ors.• [1993] 2 SCC 546 wherein this Court had held that
the area of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Act is to be F
determined with reference to the date of commencement of the Act and the
right and liability of the holder of the land for this purpose under the Act
crystallizes on the date of commencement of the Act unaffected by any
subsequent events. The scheme of the Act supports the construction that the
aforesaid Explanation (C) means that if the land has been specified in the G
master plan existing at the. time of commencement of the Act for a purpose
other than agriculture, then the land shall not be deemed to be mainly used
for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of the Explanation and not if the land
. is specified in a master plan prepared after the commencement of the Act.

Based. on the above decision, the learned Single Judge held that the H
1154 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A respondents purchased lands which are situated outside the master plan in
force on the appointed day, and as such, the provisions of the UL(C&R) Act
will not be attracted on such lands. This view was upheld by the Division
Bench. It may be notecl that the view held in Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.)
case (supra) was partly qverruled by this Court in State of A.P. and Ors. v.
N. Audikesava Reddy and Ors., [2002] 1 SCC 227 to which one of us
B (Sabharwal, J.) is a party. It was held that the master plan prepared as per law
in force even subsequent to enforcement of the Act is to be taken into
consideration to determine whether a particular piece of land is vacant land
or not and, to this extent, the decision in Atia Begum case (supra) was partly
overruled. The explanation appended to Section 6(1) of the Act regarding
C "commencement of the Act" was taken note of by this Court and it was held
in Para 13 at page 233-234 as follows:-

" ....... Further, the Explanation to Section 6(1), as noticed above, very
significantly provides that every person holding vacant land in excess
of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act shall file a
D statement before the competent authority and "the commencement of
the Act" under clause (ii) would be when the land becomes vacant for
any reason whatsoever. Therefore, the date of commencement of the
Act in a case where the land, which was not vacant earlier, would be
the date on which such land becomes vacant land. It, thus, contemplates
E a situation of land, not being vacant, becoming vacant due to
preparation of a master plan subsequent to 17-2-1976. Further, ·the
provisions of the Act require filing of a statement under Sections 6,7,
15 and 16 from time to time as and when land acquires the character
of a vacant land. Obligatfon to file statement under the Act arises
when a person comes to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling
F limit, which date necessarily may not be 17-2-1976. It would all
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

In that view of the matter, we feel that the Division Bench was not
justified in declaring that the!ands owned by these respondents were outside
G the purview of the provisions of the UL(C&R) Act and also further directing
HUDA to sanction forthwith the Jay:out and the group housing scheme
submittecf by the respondents.

It may be noted that these respondents submitted application before the
Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority alleging that they were holding • ··
H land to the extent of I 000 square meters and it is outside the purview of the
GOVT. OF A.P. v. J. SRIDEV! [K.G. BALAKR!SHNAN, !.] 1155

UL(C&R) Act and that they may be given a certificate to that effect. These A
applications were not finally considered and disposed of by the Special Officer-
cum-Competent Authority. Though the respondents contended that the Special
Officer-cum-Competent Authority had made an endorsement in the official
paper to the effect that the land involved was outside the purview of the Act,
but no such order was communicated to the respondents. In the counter- B
affidavit filed by the State, it is specifically stated that no decision was taken
on the application submitted by the respondents and before the decision was
taken, the respondents approached the Court by filing the Writ Petition. When
the applications were pending before the Special Officer-cum-Competent
Authority, the High Court should have directed the authority to take an
appropriate decision. When a statutory authority is vested with power to C
determine the question as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act, it
is ordinarily desirable to leave the question to be decided by such authority.
The aggrieved party can file appeal against the decision within the framework
provided under the Statute and the ultimate decision also could be challenged
under judicial review, if permitted in law. Instead of undergoing the normal
procedure, the respondents herein directly approached the High Court for the D
reliefs sought for by them.

The appellants would contend that the lands owned by these respondents
are urban lands coming within the purview of the UL(C&R) Act. The
respondents contend that originally the land in question was agricultural land E
and it continued to have the same identity and even if it was brought under
the master plan, it may not have any effect as regards the applicability of the
UL(C&R) Act. The respondents would also contend that after 3.9.1996, it
may come under the purview of the UL(C&R) Act and the respondents
individually owned 1000 square meters and the same is within the prescribed
ceiling limit. All these rival contentions are to be decided by Special Officer- F
cum-competent Authority. After due regard to the various provisions contained
in the relevant enactments, we do not think that this is a case where the High
Court should have directed HUDA to pass the lay-out plans without insisting
for "no objection" certificate from the Special Officer-cum-Competent
Authority.
G
We allow the Civil Appeal and direct that the Special Officer-cum-
1
Competent Authority shall take a decision in the matter at the earliest, i.e.,
within a period of three months from this date. The parties would be at
liberty to file any additional application or documents before the Special
Officer-cum-Competent Authority to substantiate their contentions. We make H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A it abundandy clear that whatever has been stated by us regarding the
applicabilify of the UL(C&R) Act is only for the purpose pf disposal of this
appeal and it shall not have any persuasive effect on the Special Officer-cum-
Competent Authority and he shall take an. independent decision uninfluenced
by such observations.

B K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

t