EASTERN OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE LTD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-1980-4-7
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on April 21,1980

EASTERN OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE LTD., JABALPUR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. L J JOHNSON [LAWS(SC)-1983-9-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.P.Singh, C.J. - (1.)By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26th October 1977 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner also challenges the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30th June 1978 and the order dated 22nd September, 1978, passed by the same Authority rejecting the review application.
(2.)The petitioner is the owner of urban property bearing municipal Number 851, Nazul block No. 5, plot No. 23, within the corporation limits of Jabalpur city. The said property consists of residential building and one outhouse with vacant land around the construction. The total area of plot No. 23 is 26,535 sq. ft. The area covered by the constructions is 2650 sq. ft. The proceedings before the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, started on issuance of six notices by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act to the Competent Authority of the intended transfer of the said urban property in six parts to six purchasers. By the order dated 26th October, 1977, the Competent Authority held that the petitioner was in possession of vacant land is excess of ceiling limit and the petitioner cannot transfer any part of his property until he furnishes a statement under Section 6 and proceedings are completed under that section. This order was maintained in appeal by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 30th June 1978. The review application against the order of the Appellate Authority was dismissed by it by order dated 22nd September, 1978.
(3.)The Appellate Authority in its order dated 30th June, 1978, came to the conclusion that the residential building was a dwelling unit as it was admitted by the petitioner in the written argument filed on 25th October, 1977, that it was being used for temporary stay of customers. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the building bye-laws in force allowed construction on 1/3rd of the total compound area and having regard to the regulation the land appurtenant under Section 2 (g) would be as follows:
(i) Land on which building has been 2650 sq. ft. constructed

(ii) Appurtenant land under S. (2) 5300 sq. ft. (g) (i) subject to a maximum of 500 sq. Metres.

(iii) Additional appurtenant land 5300 sq. ft. under S. 2 (g) (i) because the building was constructed before the appointed day with a dwelling unit therein, subject to a maximum of 500 sq. metres. The present property is being used by the company as dwelling unit, therefore, the benefit of the provision has been given. Total 13,250 sq. ft.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.