- (1.)In this appeal, the appellant Sm. Srila Moitra has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge has discharged the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The appellant is admittedly the owner of premises No. 6B, Ironside Road, Calcutta which is within the limits of the Corporation of Calcutta. The land comprised in the said premises measures 1542.625 sq. metres consisting of a building covering 233.500 Sq. metres, a tank measuring 1162.124 Sq. metres and 147.0017 Sq. metres of land appertaining to the building. On September 27, 1976, the appellant duly submitted a return under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the respondent no. 2, the Competent Authority, Calcutta. On August 19, 1979, the appellant gave a notice to the respondent no. 2 under section 26 of the Act for transfer of an area of 500 Sq. metres of the said tank by way of sale in favour of Purbarag Samabaya Abasan Ltd., a Housing Co-operative Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. In reply to the said notice, the respondent no. 2 by his letter dated October 16, 1979 informed the appellant that as she was holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit, the notice under section 26 was not valid and the transfer of the portion of the disputed tank could be allowed. Being aggrieved by the refusal by the respondent no. 2 to grant to the appellant permission to sell the said portion of the disputed tank on the ground that tank was vacant land and the appellant was holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit as contained in his said letter dated October 16, 1979 (Annexure 'C' to the writ petition), the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution whereupon the Rule Nisi, out of which this appeal arises, was issued.
(3.)At the hearing of the Rule Nisi it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the disputed tank wa not 'vacant land' within the meaning of section 2 (q) of the Act and, as such, the appellant was not in possession of any excess vacant land. The learned Judge, however, came to the finding that tank should be construed as vacant land within the meaning of section 2 (q) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi. Hence this appeal.