Decided on June 26,1992

T.N.KHAMBATI Appellant


Sivaraman Nair J. - (1.)There are six petitioners. The first three are brothers and the next three are their sisters. They challenge a common appellate order dated 22.5.1989 passed by the 1st respondent dismissing three appeals filed by petitioners 1 to 3 against the orders dt.26.6.1982 and 22.12.1988 which the 2nd respondent had made under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). The orders related to Urban Land in old No.l42/C corresponding to Municipal numbers 1.8.161 to 164 on Penderghast Road, Secunderabad. Respondents found petitioners 1 to 3 to have 706.34 Sq.metres each of surplus land above the ceiling limits fixed under section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Petitioners submit that the above finding contained in the appellate order, which affirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, is illegal and unsustainable.
(2.)Petitioners 1 to 3 the brothers, purchased 6794 Sq.metres of land consisting of a few residential buildings by sale deed No.6629/73 dt. 18-10-1973 from the previous owners. They contend that at that time, the land consisted of a residential bungalow, three out houses (residential), one garage, one store room and one toilet. They entered into an agreement on 5-7-1974 for sale of 3989 Sq. metres of land on which stood six out of the seven buildings, except the garage, to their sisters petitioners 4 to 6, for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Petitioners 1 to 3 submit that they had received an amount of Rs.30,000/- from petitioners 4 to 6 on 5.7.1974 when possession of the portion covered by the agreement was handed over to them. It is the case of petitioners 1 to 3 that they had disclosed these facts in their returns under the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment years. The sale could not, however, be completed due to the pendency of proceedings, under section 295 of the Income Tax Act for acquisition of the above property by the Department, and also due to the fact that the Municipal authorities had not effected mutation of names in the Municipal Property Registers. According to petitioners 1 to 3, they commenced construction of a servants' quarters and a water tower in the open land in their possession and completed the same, by which time, the Municipal Authorities issued notice under Section 461 of the Municipal Corporation Act objecting to the unauthorised construction.That notice was dated 5.11.1975. It was thereafter that the Act came into force on 17.2.1976.
(3.)The first petitioner filed a return under section 6 of the act. He claimed that each of the three transferors petitioners 1 to 3 was entitled to exemption of appurtenant and additional appurtenant lands to the extent of 1,000 Sq. metres each in respect of the three portions of the residential buildings and appurtenant land of 500 Sq. metres in respect of the non-residential buildings. He claimed such exemption in respect of the Water Tower and Servants' Quarters which were allegedly constructed before the commencement of the Act. He also claimed that the agreement for sale dt.5-7-74, whereby petitioners 4 to 6 were put in possession of 3989 Sq. metres of land was partly performed by payment of Rs.30,000/- and simultaneous delivery of possession of land and buildings and, therefore, that extent was not includible in the holding of petitioners 1 to 3. He submitted that in either case, petitioners 1 to 3 or 4 to 6 were not holding excess land which they were liable to surrender under the Act, since none of, them had urban land in excess of the ceiling limits.

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