http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. MAYA DUTTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               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. The 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 No.1453/81.      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.      It  is   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 Vs. Union  of India  & Ors.  [(1981) 1 SCC 1661]. Therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.      With this  finding, the  appeal  is,  disposed  of.  No costs.