Supreme Court Addresses Land Ceiling Act and Possession Rights: U.A. Basheer vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 74

Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran

Can a person claim the benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, if they purchased land that was declared as excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the determination of excess land and the effect of possession on the abatement of proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The Court examined whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in dismissing the appellant’s plea for abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran, with the opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over five properties in Ullal village, Mangalore, originally belonging to the joint family of Smt. Korapalu Sapalyathi and Smt. Nemu Sapalyathi. After their death, the properties were allegedly divided among their ten children through a registered partition deed dated 9 January 1984. Smt. Leela Sapalyathi, one of the daughters, received a share of 1983 sq. mts., including land in Survey No. 53/3A. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, came into force in Karnataka on 17 February 1976. Padmanabha, one of the children, filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act on 15 June 1984, declaring the joint family property. The Competent Authority issued a draft statement to Padmanabha to surrender excess vacant land of 9,489.48 sq. mts., including land in Survey No. 53/3A. Padmanabha objected, stating that the property had been divided and individual shares were within the ceiling limit. The Competent Authority, on 5 December 1994, held that the partition deed was after the commencement of the Principal Act and directed the surrender of 5,210.10 sq. mts. of land. An award was passed on 16 October 1996, fixing compensation for the excess land. The appellant, U.A. Basheer, claims to have purchased a portion of Survey No. 53/3A from Smt. Leela Sapalyathi on 26 March 1994 and was unaware of the orders of the Competent Authority. Upon discovering the government’s name in the RTC, he filed a petition under the Repeal Act, which was rejected. He then approached the High Court, which also dismissed his plea.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 21 October 2003, primarily because the partition deed was not produced. The Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed the Appellant’s writ appeal on 26 March 2009, observing that the partition after the commencement of the Principal Act would not affect the proceedings under the Principal Act and that the Appellant had not established his interest in the suit property before the commencement of the Act. The Division Bench also noted that the Competent Authority was not obligated to issue notice to the Appellant. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section mandates that every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act must file a statement before the Competent Authority. The Court noted that the determination of excess land is to be made considering the status of the land at the time of commencement of the Principal Act.
• Section 8 and 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: These sections outline the procedure for the Competent Authority to issue notice and provide a hearing to the person who has filed the statement under Section 6. The Court noted that other interested parties are to be considered through a gazetted notification as per Section 10(1).
• Section 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section mandates the issuance of a gazetted notification for claims of all other persons interested in the vacant land.
• Section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: This section deals with the restrictions on transfer of land after the commencement of the Act.
• Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: This section provides for the abatement of proceedings under the Principal Act, except those relating to Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14, if possession of the land has not been taken over by the State Government. The provision states:
  

  “4. All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate: Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11,12,13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.”

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: This section provides a savings clause stating that the repeal shall not affect the vesting of any vacant land in the State Government, the possession of which has been taken over by the concerned State Government.
• Section 3(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999: This section states that vacant land vested in the State Government, the possession for which has not been taken over, shall be restored only once any compensation paid to the land-holder has been returned.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that Smt. Leela Sapalyathi obtained 1983 sq. mts. of land in the joint family property through a partition deed dated 9 January 1984, which included a residential house. As per Schedule 1, Category D of the Principal Act, a person is entitled to hold 2000 sq. mts. of land. Therefore, the Competent Authority erred in concluding that Padmanabha held excess land.
• The appellant argued that the Competent Authority passed the order dated 5 December 1994 without issuing notice to the Appellant or his vendor, Smt. Leela Sapalyathi, and that the proceedings under the Principal Act were carried out without their knowledge.
• The appellant submitted that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act was filed by Padmanabha on 15 June 1984, and his objections were filed on 1 July 1985. However, the Competent Authority passed its order on 5 December 1994, after 9 years, without issuing notice to any of the 10 members of the joint family.
• The appellant contended that since neither compensation had been paid nor possession had been taken on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act (8 July 1999), the orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Principal Act have abated.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that an extent of 0.57 acre in Survey No. 53/3A and 0.71 ¾ acre in Survey No. 53/3B2 of Ullal Village have been declared excess as per Section 10(3) of the Principal Act, based on the declaration filed by Padmanabha under Section 6(1) on 15 June 1984. Therefore, all transactions after that date, including the sale of the suit property to the Appellant, without the permission of the Competent Authority, are null and void as per Section 42 of the Principal Act.
• The respondents submitted that after the issuance of notification under Section 10(3) of the Principal Act, the suit property vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, the necessary entries were made in the Government’s name in the RTC.
• The respondents contended that Padmanabha was given the opportunity to put forth his objections, which were considered by the Competent Authority before passing orders under Section 8(4) of the Principal Act. The partition deed was effected on 9 January 1984, after the commencement of the Principal Act, and cannot be considered as per Section 42 of the Principal Act.
• The respondents argued that since the Appellant had not filed the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Principal Act, the question of issuing notice to him does not arise.
• The respondents claimed that the Government had taken possession of the suit property on 12 July 1996, as per Section 10(6) of the Principal Act.
• The respondents maintained that the order dated 5 December 1994, passed by the Competent Authority, is within jurisdiction, and the declaration filed by Padmanabha was enquired into properly and decided on merit. Proper notices were issued to the declarant at all stages, and the Appellant does not have any right over the excess land.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but dealt with the following:

• Whether the partition deed dated 9 January 1984, affected after the commencement of the Principal Act, would affect the Competent Authority’s determination of excess land.
• Whether the Competent Authority was obligated to issue notice to the Appellant before passing the order.
• Whether the proceedings under the Principal Act would abate under the Repeal Act if possession of the suit property was not taken by the Competent Authority before the commencement of the Repeal Act.
• Whether the Appellant had the locus standi to pray for abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act.
• Whether the Appellant had the ownership and possession of the suit property.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the statutory provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, to determine the issues. The Court interpreted Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to mean that the determination of excess land is to be made considering the status of the land at the time of commencement of the Principal Act. It interpreted Sections 8 and 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to mean that the Competent Authority is obligated to issue notice only to the person who filed the statement under Section 6. The Court relied on Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 to hold that the question of possession was material for determining whether the proceedings under the Principal Act would abate. The Court also considered Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 to determine the effect of the repeal on the vesting of land in the State Government.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to determine the factual position regarding possession of the suit property. The Court emphasized that under the Repeal Act, proceedings under the Principal Act would abate if possession had not been taken by the government. Therefore, the court focused on establishing whether the appellant had possession of the suit property and whether the Competent Authority had taken possession before the Repeal Act came into force. The court also considered the fact that the partition deed was executed after the commencement of the Principal Act, which, as per Section 42, would not affect the determination of excess land. The court’s reasoning also highlighted the importance of adhering to the legislative intent of the Repeal Act, which aimed to provide relief to landowners where possession had not been taken by the government.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the partition deed could be valid, but rejected it based on the fact that the partition was done after the commencement of the Principal Act. The Court also considered that the Competent Authority had given notice to the declarant Padmanabha. The Court ultimately focused on the question of possession, as it was the key factor for determining whether the proceedings would abate under the Repeal Act. The Court did not find any conclusive evidence on record to establish possession by either party and thus remitted the matter to the High Court for a factual inquiry.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the Division Bench for a fresh consideration. The Court directed the Division Bench to inquire into the questions of fact, such as whether the Appellant’s claim over the suit property was valid, whether he was in actual physical possession, and whether he had the locus standi to pray for abatement of the proceedings under the Repeal Act. The Court emphasized that this would settle the question of abatement of proceedings and prevent further litigation.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…the determination of ‘excess land’ is to be made considering the status of the land at the time of commencement of the Principal Act, and not at the time of filing of the declaration.”

“…if the Appellant does enjoy possession, as claimed by him, any proceedings for any excess land under the Principal Act are liable to abate, as per Section 3 and Section 4 of the Repeal Act, and the Appellant would be entitled to ownership and possession over the suit property.”

“…there is nothing on record, that conclusively establishes possession of the suit property either by the Competent Authority or the Appellant herein. Given the conflicting averments made by the parties, this is a pure question of fact.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case, as it was a unanimous decision by the two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• The determination of excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, is based on the status of the land at the time of commencement of the Act, not at the time of filing the declaration.
• Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, proceedings under the Principal Act abate if possession of the land has not been taken over by the State Government before the commencement of the Repeal Act.
• The question of possession is crucial in determining whether proceedings under the Principal Act abate.
• The Competent Authority is only obligated to issue notice to the person who filed the statement under Section 6 of the Principal Act.
• Factual inquiries are necessary to determine the actual possession of the land in dispute.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to consider the case afresh. The Division Bench was directed to keep all questions of fact open, including the validity of the Appellant’s claim over the suit property, whether he was in actual physical possession, and whether he had the locus standi to pray for abatement of the proceedings under the Repeal Act. The parties were given liberty to place additional evidence on record.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the question of possession is crucial in determining whether proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, would abate under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The Court clarified that the determination of excess land is based on the status of the land at the commencement of the Principal Act, and not after that. This case also emphasizes the importance of factual inquiries in determining possession and the need to adhere to the legislative intent of the Repeal Act, providing relief to landowners where possession had not been taken by the government.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in U.A. Basheer vs. State of Karnataka clarifies the interplay between the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, particularly concerning the determination of excess land and the effect of possession on the abatement of proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of factual inquiries in determining possession and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration. The judgment underscores that the status of the land at the commencement of the Principal Act is crucial for determining excess land, and the actual possession of the land at the time of the Repeal Act is material for abatement of the proceedings.

Category

Parent Category: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

• Child Category: Section 6(1), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
• Child Category: Section 8, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
• Child Category: Section 9, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
• Child Category: Section 10(1), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
• Child Category: Section 42, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

Parent Category: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999

• Child Category: Section 4, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
• Child Category: Section 3(1)(a), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
• Child Category: Section 3(2), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999