SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT ALJTHORITY, URBAN LAND CEILINGS, HYDERABAD AND ANR.versusP.S. RAO

  SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AlJTHORITY, URBAN                               A
         LAND CEILINGS, HYDERABAD AND ANR.
                                     v.
                                 P.S. RAO

                           JANUARY 17, 2000
                                                                                B
           (M. JAGANNADHA RAO AI'ID A.P. MISRA, JJ.]

       Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: Sections 2(1) 2(q),
4(9), 6, 10, 20(l)(a), 20(1)(b), 21and22.
                                                                                c
       Land Laws-Declaration of excess land and vesting of same in the
State--Thereafter application for grant of exemption under Section
20( 1)(b J-f'ermissibility of-High Court held that application under Section
20 was maintainable even after an order of vesting of excess land was passed
under Section JO-Appeal before Supreme Cou~eld no interference was
called for with the order of High Court- -It is only after the excess land is   D
actually determined under Section JO that a person can know the exact extent
of excess land in his holding and think of asldng for exemption-There may,
of course, be some cases where the extent is so large that a claimant may be
able to seek exemption even at the time of filing the declaration but even in
those cases, he cannot be definite about the actual extent of excess lan~The    E
definition of the words 'to hold' in Section 2( 1) cannot be applied in the
context of Section 20(l)(a) or Section 20(1)(b).

      T.R. Thandur v. Union of lndia & Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 690; Darothi
Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1996] 9 SCC
633 and State of A.P. represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department,    F
Hyderabad v. Valium Venkateswara Rao, (1997) 3 ALT 417, referred to.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition No.
1662 of 2000.
                                                                                G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.99 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 1696 of 1998.

      P.P. Rao, B. Sridhar and Y.S. Rao for the Petitioners.

      D.A. Dave and S.U.K. Sagar for the Respondent.                            H
                                    257
    258                  SUPREME CO CRT REPORTS                  [20C0] 1 S.C.R.
A         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Delay condoned.

          Heard counsel on both sides. Li:arned counsel for the State of
    Andhra Pradesh has contended before us that an application for grant of
B   exemption under Section 2U(I)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula-
    tion) Act, 1976 is not maintainable once the excess land has been declared
    and the excess land has vested in the State under Section 10, in as much
    as the declarant cannot be said to be 'holding" the land any longer.
    Reliance is placed on Section 2( 1) which defines the words 'to hold'.
c         We are unable to accept the above contention. The scheme of the
  Act is that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has
  to filt: a declaration under Section 6. Vacant land is defined in Section 2( q)
  as not including land on which construction is not permissible under
  building regulations, land occupied by building, before the due date or
D under construction. Section 2(q) defines urban land as urban land which
  is referred to as such in master plan etc. but does not include agricultural
  land. As to what is the relevant 'master plan' there are some decisions of
  this Court. Detailed procedure is specified in the Act as to how individuals,
  families, firms, companies etc. are to file declarations. As to what is to be
  done if land is held in different capacities or land with limited rights, like
E lessee, mortgagee etc. various provisions are made. Section 4(9) deals with
  person holding land with building and other vacant land. Section 4(9) has
   been the subject matter of some decisions of thi~ Court.

        All these provisions require detailed computation based on the facts
p of each case. In addttion, the effect of several judgments of the Courts are
  to be considered by the authority. Therefore, it is obvious that at the time
  when the declaration is filed a person may or may not be in a position to
  know definitely whether he can be said to be in possession of the excess
  vacant land or not, or even if he can believe he is in possession of excess
  land, how much land is liable to be surrendered exactly. This is because of
G the fact as pointed above, there are various provisions in the statute which
  provide statutory deduction and computation and unless the final computa-
  tion is made, it is indeed difficult to say whether there is excess or even if
  there is excess, as to what is the extent of the excess land. Unless the
  qua.itum of excess land, after the statutory deductions etc. is arrived at,
H one cannot, in our opinion, decide whether to surrender the excess land or
           SPL OFFICER URBAN LAND CIELINGS v. P.S. RAO                          259

to seek exemption either under Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) or                 A
apply under Section 21 or Section 22.

       For example, the cdling limit in Hyderabad (from where this case
arises), is 1000 Sq. mt:tres. Even if there an: buildings within the property,
one has tu file a declaration if the total extent is more than 1000 Sq. metres
and claim exemption as per statutory deductions. He may claim that after               B
deducting various areas as permitted by the statute, he need not surrender
any land. The compelt:nt authority may or may not accept the statutory
deductions claimed, like appurtenant land de. and may determine excess.
The declarant ha~ a right of appeal. The appellate authority may accept or
reject or modify the orders. It may turn out that the excess, in a given case,         c
is (say) only 20 Sq. metres. It is obvious that it is a case for exemption for
it will not be useful for government to allot such a small piece of land to
weakt:r sections. In yet another case, the excess may be 500 Sq. metres or
more and a declarant may be prepared to construct buildings for weaker
sectiofil under Section 21 or Section 22 may be invoked. In yet another
case, a declarant may claim that exemption is necessary in public interest             D
under section 20(1)(a) or because of grave hardship, under section
20(1)(b).

      In our view, it is only after the excess and is actually determined
under Section 10 that a person can know the exact extent of exet:ss land in            E
his holding and think of asking for exemption. There may, of course, be
some cases where the extent is so large that a claimant may be able to seek
exemption even at the time of filing the declaration but even in those cases,
he cannot be definite about the actual extent of excess land.
                                                                                       F
        Learned counsel, however, relied upon the definition of the words
"to hold" in sub-section (1) of Section (2) to contend that once the final
declaration is made and the excess vacant land has vested in the State, the
person dues nut 'hold' the excess land and no application fur exemption
under Sectiop 20 can be filed since Section 20 contemplates filing an
application by a person who "holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling G
area··. Section 2(1) states :

           'unless the context otherwise requires, .............................' to
        hold' with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land
        means:                                                                         H
    260                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2000] l S.C.R.

A           (i) to own such land; or

            (ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or
            under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire purchase
            agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any
            other of the said capacity or capacities.
B
          The definition of the words ''to hold" in section 2(1) is relevant at the
    time of computation of the ceiling area and at the stage of the preliminary
    determination of excess and the final d.:termination, under Sections 8 and
    9 of the Act, the excess is to be dekrmined on tht: basis of tht: land
C   permitted by the Act to be held by a p1;rson.

         But, the word ''hold'' in Section 20(1)(a) or Section 20(1)(b) cannot,
  in our opinion, have the same meaning that can be attributed to it as in
  Section 2(1). The very definition in Section 2(1) states that the sub-section
  applies unless there is anything in the context which suggests a different
D meaning to be given. In our view, in the context of Section 20(t)(a) and
  Section 20(1)(b), the definition given in Section 2(1) cannot be applied.
  The reason is that such a construction will make section 20 unworkable
  and otiose. We have pointed out above that it is not possible to make any
  meaningful application for exemption under Section 20(t)(a) or (b) unless
E the exact quantum of excess is determined under Section 10 after following
  the various provisions of the Act relating to statutory deductions and mode
  of computation. If the contention of tht: State reft:rred to above is to be
  accepted, then the peculiar position will be as follows. As stated by us,
   before the excess is determined, a person will not able to seek exemption
  because he does not know what is the actual excess land held and once the
F excess is determined, he cannot apply because he is not holding the excess
   land. Thus, the entire object of Section 20 will be frustrated. That is why
   we say that the dt:finition of the words 'to hold' in Section 2(1) cannot be
   applied in the context of s.,ction 20(L)(a) or Section 20(t){b).

           We are, tht.refon:, unable to accept the contention of the learned
G counsel for the State that an application for exemption can be maintained
  only before the excess is determined, under Section 10. In our view, the
  scheme of the Act is to the contrary. The view taken by the High Court
  following the decision of this Court in TR. Thandur v. Union of India and
  Ors., (1996] 3 SCC 690; Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v State of
H Maharashtra and Ors., (1996] 9 SCC 633 and State of A.P., represellted by
                 SPL. OFFICER URBAN LAND ClbLlNGS v. P.S. RAO                  261

      Secretary to Govt., Revenue Departmen~ Hyderabad v. Valluru Venkateswara        A
      Rao, (1997) 3 ALT 417, does not call for any interference.

            We dispose of the Special Leave Petition accordingly. We do not
      consider it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
      which held that Section 20 application is maintainable even if filed after an
      order of vesting of excess land passed under Section 10.                        B
      T.N.A.                                                 Petition disposed of.




..;