Poddar directing her to file a statement in Form No.
of the built up property and 339.65 sq.
mtrs, are substracting therefrom 500 sq.
Poddar filed to the draft statement were rejected by the Competent Authority, who published the final statement under section 9 of the Act vesting the said 254.21 sq.
The appellant then got scent of the dismissal of the appeal of Smt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.6.1987 of the Cal cutta High Court in original order number 129 of 1985 and/915 of 1983.
1 on the basis that she held vacant land in the Calcutta Urban Area in excess of the ceiling limit of 500 sq.
of land figure arrived by totalling .414.56 sq.
Both the properties of Smt.
Pursu ant to the said decree, the deed of companyveyance in respect of the vacant property was executed in favour of the appellant on November 19, 1981 for a companysideration of Rs.1,26,000/ paid over to Smt.
The appel lant then filed a Review Petition before the Appellate Authority stating, inter alia, that she had become the owner of the vacant property and prayed for retrieval of the same from being treated as excess land in the hands of Smt.
The Writ Petition was opposed on each and every ground.
On August 7, 1980, the companypetent authority in exercise of powers under Section 6 2 of the said Act, issued a numberice under Section 6 1 thereof to Smt.
of excess land in the State, and the same was companymunicated to Smt.
Podar.
121 of 1981 against Smt.
Hereaf ter these would be referred to as the built up property and vacant property respectively.
Poddar entered into an agreement with Smt.
The State 1egislatures of 11 States, including the State of West Bengal, companysidered it desirable to have a uniform legislation enacted by Parlia ment for the imposition of ceiling on urban property for the companyntry as a whole, and in companypliance with clause 1 of Article 252 of the Constitution, passed a Resolution to that effect.
The Review Petition was rejected on August 10, 1983, which occasioned a petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution being filed by the appellant in the Calcutta High Court on a variety of grounds.
K. Ganguly, A.K. Chakraborty, A.D. Sikri and Ms. Mridula Ray for the Appellants.
The Competent Authority thereafter initiated suomo to proceed ings against Smt.
of vacant land.
Poddar and sent her a draft statement on September 18, 1979, exercising powers under Section 8 1 of the Act intimating that she companyld submit her objection, if any, to the draft statement.
She preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act before the Special Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, the Appellate Author ity under the Act, but the same was dismissed in default on January 18, 1983.
N. Mukherjee and Rathin Das for the Respondents.
129 of 1985, leading to this appeal by special leave at the instance of the appellant.
Poddar on June 22, 1981.
The objections of Smt.
Possession of the vacant property was delivered to the appellant and necessary entries were made in the municipal and revenue registers.
It was specified in the said statement that she was tentatively required to surrender 254.21 sq.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCiviIAppeaINo.
P 210, C.I.T. Scheme VII M , Calcutta companyprising 339.65 sq.
resulting in 254.21 sq.
On November 23, 1978, the proposed vendor and the proposed vendee gave numberice under Section 26 of the Act to the Competent Authority, appointed for the purpose of the proposed sale.
Poddar in default on July 2, 1983.
P 290, C.I.T. Road, companyprising 414.56 sq.
The matter having companye before a two Judge Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, on 28.7.1988, it was felt that lohnsons case supra may have to be tested, and thus the matter was ordered to be heard by a larger Bench at least of three Judges.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. We are required in this matter to interplay some of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regu lation Act, 1976 to determine whether the appellant herein had any excess vacant land.
Before hand the appellant herein filed suit No.
of the vacant property to 754.21 sq.
Poddar in the Calcutta High Court claiming specific performance of the agreement dated July 8, 1978.
On August 21, 1981, a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the appellant in the usual terms.
Having got numberresponse, a reminder was sent to her, but in vain.
On appeal by the State of West Bengal and its responding officers, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment and order of the Single Judge on June 5, 1987 in Appeal No.
4235 of 1991.
The exact date period of the companystruction of the built up property is number available on the present record but the litigation has proceeded on the footing that it was companystructed long before February 17, 1976, the day when the Act came into force in the State of West Bengal.
of land of which 321 sq.
Accordingly, the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Bill, 1976 was introduced in the Lock Sabha on January 28, 1976 companyering all the Union Territories and the 11 resolving States.
Before hand on July 8, 1978, Smt.
was companyered by a build ing, companystructed thereon long before the companying into force of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereafter referred to as the Act , with a dwelling unit therein, and ii property No.
Poddar.
Meera Gupta, the appellant herein, to sell the vacant property on terms entered.
