9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of 'family' in Section 2(f) 2. Validity of Section 23 3. Validity of Section 11(6) 4. Validity of Section 27(1) Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of 'family' in Section 2(f) Analysis: The judgment discusses the definition of 'family' in Section 2(f) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The definition includes the individual, the spouse, and their unmarried minor children. The court held that this definition does not necessarily lead to the concentration of wealth in a few hands. The court emphasized that the definition is not intended to create wealth concentration and does not violate the Directive Principles of State Policy in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. The definition was upheld as valid and not arbitrary or artificial. 2. Validity of Section 23 Analysis: Section 23 addresses the disposal of excess vacant land acquired under the Act. The court found that the definition of 'industry' in clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 23 is unduly wide, including "any business, profession, trade, undertaking or manufacture." However, the court concluded that the preponderating provision is sub-section (4) of Section 23, which mandates that all vacant lands acquired by the State Government "shall be disposed of to subserve the common good." The court held that the disposal of excess vacant lands must be made strictly in accordance with the mandate of sub-section (4), ensuring that any disposal serves the common good. The court emphasized that any disposal not serving the common good would be liable to be struck down. The preamble of the Act, which aims to prevent the concentration of urban land and ensure equitable distribution, should guide the interpretation of Section 23. 3. Validity of Section 11(6) Analysis: Section 11(6) limits the amount payable for excess vacant land to two lakhs of rupees. The court upheld this provision, stating that the amount is not illusory and the provision is not confiscatory. The court reasoned that two lakhs of rupees is a substantial amount and not a trivial sum, even if the excess land may be worth a fortune. The court emphasized that the provision does not violate Article 31(2) of the Constitution. 4. Validity of Section 27(1) Analysis: Section 27(1) imposes a restriction on the transfer of any urban or urbanisable land with a building or a portion of such building within the ceiling area. The court found this provision invalid to the extent that it imposes a restriction on the transfer of property within the ceiling area. The court held that such property should be transferable without the constraints mentioned in Section 27(1). Conclusion: The court upheld the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, except for the restriction on the transfer of property within the ceiling area imposed by Section 27(1). The definition of 'family' in Section 2(f) and the provisions of Sections 23 and 11(6) were found to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution. The writ petitions were dismissed except for the partial invalidation of Section 27(1), and there was no order as to costs.
|
