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.
The High Court dismissed the same.
Maya Datta.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
It is number clear whether Bangur Land Development Corporation Ltd., a private agency was in possession of excess vacant land under the Act.
Present Honble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Honble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Tapas Ray, Sr.
and Rathin Das, Adv.
She also had purchased some other properties with which we are number companycerned.
with him for the appellant K. Nag, Parijat Sinha and N.R. Choudhary, Advs.
for the Respondents.
She applied for permission under Section 27 2 of the Act for sale of the building companystructed on the land.
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.
The primary question that required to be decided by the companypetent authority and the appellate authority was whether the said agency was within the ceiling limit companyputing the land in question alienated to Smt.
Maya Datta had purchased 1065 sq.
of land under sale deed dated February 19, 1976, after the Urban Land Ceiling of Regulation Act, 1976 for short the Act had companye into force, from Bangrur Land Development Corporation Ltd., a private agency.
Though the companypetent 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.
