Holding

Explanation (C) applies only to master plans that existed at the time of the Act’s commencement; therefore land shown in a later master plan cannot be excluded from the definition of ‘urban land’ as mainly used for agriculture.

Summary

Atia Mohammad Begum owned vacant land in Aligarh that was entered in revenue records as agricultural before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force on 17‑02‑1976. The competent authority declared the land to be in excess of the ceiling limit, but the District Judge reduced the excess area to 6,738.23 sq m. The High Court set aside the District Judge’s order, holding that Explanation (C) to Section 2(o) of the Act excluded the land from being deemed agricultural because it was shown in a master plan prepared on 24‑02‑1980. The Supreme Court examined whether Explanation (C) applies to master plans prepared after the Act’s commencement and held that it only refers to master plans existing at the time of commencement; subsequent plans cannot alter the status of the land. Consequently, the Court restored the District Judge’s determination of the excess land and set aside the High Court’s judgment.

Issues considered

Whether Explanation (C) to Section 2(o) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 excludes land shown in a master plan prepared after the Act’s commencement from being deemed mainly used for agriculture.
Whether the determination of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit must be based on the situation at the date of commencement of the Act.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 2(a), s. 2(b), s. 2(h), s. 2(o), s. 3, s. 5

Subjects

urban landceiling limitmaster planagricultural usestatutory interpretationExplanation CULCRA 1976land ceiling

Judgment

,.

- ~··
SMT. ATIA MOHAMMAD! BEGUM
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
A

MARCH 15, 1993
B
[J.S. VERMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.]
~
'1 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976: Section 2(o), Expiana-
tion (C}-Urban Land-Determination of-Land specified in master plan for
a purpose other than agricu/tur~Whether means /and so specified in the
master plan which was in existence at the time of the commencement of the c
Act-Vacant land entered into revenue or land records as for purpose of
agriculture before commencement of the Act and prior to declaration of the
-)- master plan-Whether could be excluded from the ambit of 'urban land'.

The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regnlation) Act, 1976, came into force D
in the respondent-State on 17.2.1976. The appellant claimed exclusion of
vacant land owned by her, from the ambit of 'urban land' on the ground
that it was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, as defined in
Section 2(o) of the Act. The land in question was entered in the revenue
or land records before the commencement of the Act as for the purpose of
4
agriculture. At the time when the Act came into force there was no master E
y- plan for the city in which the appellant's laud was situated. However, a
master plan for the city was made on 24.2.1980, wherein the land in
dispute was shown.
,..._.
The competent authority declared that the appellant bad 19813.83 F
sq. mts. of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, but the District Judge
reduced the area of the excess land to 6738.23 sq. mts. Against the order
of the District Judge, both sides filed writ petitions. The High Court
dismissed appellant's writ petition and partly allowed the writ petition of
the State Government. It held that the appellant's land could not be
treated as mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of Explana- G
tion (C) because it was shown in the master plan made on 24.2.1980.

~ In the appeals before this Court the correctness of the High Court's
view was challenged by the appellant and restoration of the District
Judge's order was sought H
295
2% SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1.1. Explanation (C) in Section 2(o) of the Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 means that if the land bas been specified
in the master plan existing at the time of commencement of the Act for a
pnrpose other than agriculture, then the land should not be deemed to be
B 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. The plain language of Explanation (C) bears
this construction and requires it to be so construed in order to harmonise
it with the other provisions and scheme of the Act, e.g. Sections 3 and 5.
C The master plan defined in Section 2(b) and refei;ed in the definition of
'urban land' in Section 2(o), including Explanat!on (C) therein, is a
master plan prepared and in existence at the time .of commencement of the
Act when by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, rights Of the holder of the land
under the Act get 'crystallised and extinguish his right to bold any vacant
D land in excess of the ceiling limit. The proceedings for determining the
vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit according to the machinery
provisions in the Act is merely for quantification, and to effectuate the
rights and .liabilities which have crystallised at the time of commencement
of the Act. Just as the holder of the land cannot by bis subsequent actions
reduce the area of the vacant land in excess of the celing limit, the
E authorities too cannot by any subsequent action increase the area of the
excess vacant land by a similar action. [298G-H, 299A-C] -"f
1.2. The construction made of these provisions by the High Court
cannot, therefore, be accepted. Accordingly, the order passed by the Dis-
trict Judge determining the area of 6738.23 sq. mts. only as the vacant
F land in excess of the ceiling limit is restored. [299D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 297 &
298of1993.
_J
G From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1984 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4018/80 and 5174 of 1980.

R.K: Khanna, Ms. Abba R. Sharma, Manoj Goel and Pankaj Kalra
for the Appellant. ~

H Ms. Alka Aggrawa\, R.C. Verma, Ashok K. Srivastava for the
ATIA MOHAMMAD! BEGUM v. STATE OF U.P. [VERMA, J.] 297

Respondents. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VERMA, J. These appeals by special leave are against the judgment
and order dated 12.11.1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition
Nos. 4018 of 1980 and 5174 of 1980 which were filed by the appellant and B
the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Judgment dated 12.2.1980 of the
District Judge, Aligarh in Land Ceiling Appeal No.24 of 1978. The com-
petent authority delcared that the appellant had 19813.83 sq. mts. of vacant
land in Aligarh in excess of the ceiling limit but the District Judge reduced
I the area of the excess land to 6738.23 sq. mts. Against the order of the C
District Judge, both sides filed writ petitions. The High Comt dismissed
appellant's writ petition and partly allowed the writ petition of the State
Government. This has led to the filing of these appeals against the High
->- Court's order made in these two writ petitions against the appellant.

Learned c<iunsel for the appellant argued for restoration of the D
District Judge's order whereby an area· of 6738.23 sq. mts. was declared to
be in excess of the ceiling limit as against 19813.83 sq. mts. declared by the
competent authority. The High Court set aside the District Jµdge's order
on the construction it made of Explanantion (C) in Section 2(o) defining
'urban land' in the Urba!l Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The E
definition of 'urban land' in Section 2(o) excludes from. its ambit, land
which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Thereafter; the Ex-
planation for the purpose of clause (o) defining 'urban land' and clause (q)
defining 'vacant land' is given. Clause (A) of the Explanation defines
'agriculture'. There is no dfspute that the vacant land of which exclusion is
claimed by the appellant on the ground that it is mainly used for the F
purpose of agriculture is so used according to the definition of 'agriculture'.
There is also no dispute that clause (B) of the Explanation is satisfied by
the appellant since the land was entered in the revenue or land records
before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture. The only dispute
is with regard to clause (C) of the Explanation which reads as under:-
G
"(C) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of
this 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;" H
~·

r
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.CK

A There is no dispute that the Act came into force in the State of Uttar
Pradesh on 17.2.1976 and there was no master plan for that area in Aligarh ~
I
at that time. However, a master plan for Aligarh was made on 24.2.1980
wherein the land in dispute was shown. The High Court has taken the view
that the appellant's land could not be treated as mainly used for the
purpose of agriculture by virtue of Explaination (C) because it was shown
B in the master plan made on 24.2.1980. The correctness of this view has been
y
challenged in these appeals.
,,.
Some other provisions of the Act which are material for deciding this
~
question may now be referred. Section 2 enacts that except. as otherwise
c provided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no person
shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.
Accordingly, the right of the person to hold any vacant land in excess of
the ceiling limit ceased on the date of commencement of the Act even ~-
though determination of the excess area had to be made under the
D machinery provisions, thereafter, in accordance with the prescribed proce-
dure. The area of vancant land in excess of the ceiling limit held by the
appellant has, therefore, to be determined as on 17.2.1976 when the Act
came into force .in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Clause (a) of Section 2
defines 'appointed day' to mean the date of introduction of the Bill in
Parliament in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first
E instance like the State of Uttar Pradesh and that date to 28.1.1976. Section
5 of the Act provides that any transfer made of vacant land in excess of ~-
'""
the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the ap·
pointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act shall be
ineffective and the land so transferred shall be taken into account in
F calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. This is a further
indication that determination of the area of vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit under the Act is to be made with reference to the date of
commencemcn< of the Act and the right and liability of the holder of the
land for this purpose under the Act crystallises on the date of commence-
ment of the' Act. unaffected by any subsequent events. The scheme of the
G Act supports the. construction that the aforesaid Explanation {C) means
that if the land has been specified in the master plan existing at the time
of commencement of the 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
H a master plan prepared after the commencement of the Act. The plain
t

ATIA MOHAMMAD! BEGUM v. STATE OF U.P. (VERMA, J.] 299

lanuguage of Explanation (C) bears this construction and requires it to be A
so construed in order to harmonise it with the other provisions and scheme
of the Act. Just as the holder of the land cannot by his subsequent actions
reduce the area of the vacant land in excess· of the ceiling limit, the
authorities too cannot by any subsequent action increase the area of the B
excess vacant land by a similar action. The 'master plan' defined in Section
2(h) and referred in the definition of 'urban land' in Section 2(o), including
Explanation (C) therin, is obviously a master plan prepared and in exist-
ence at the time of commencement of the Act when by virtue of Section 2
of the Act, rights of the holder of the land under the Act get 'crystallised C

--
•
and extinguish his right to hold any vacant land .in excess of the ceiling
limit. The proceedings, for determining the vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit according to the machinery provisions in the Act is merely for
quantification, and to effectuate the rights and liabilities which have crys- D
tallised at the time of commencement of the Act. The contrary view taken
on the construction made of these provisions by the High Court cannot,
therefore, be accepted.

On the above conclusion, there is no .dispute that the order made by E
the District Judge has to be restored. Consequently, the impugned orders
made by the High Court in the two writ petitions before it are set aside
and the order dated 12.2.1980 passed by the District Judge determing the
area of 6738.23 sq. mts. only as the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit F
is restored. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed in this manner, to this
extent. No costs.

N.P.V. Appeals allowed.

-