9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders granting exemption under S. 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 with a condition of paying penalty. Whether the land was vacant land and if penalty could be imposed while granting exemption under S. 20(1)(b) of the said Act. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned orders granting exemption under S. 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land Act with a condition of paying a penalty of 20% of the land value. The petitioner's counsel argued that the land was not vacant as construction was ongoing on the appointed day, thus exempt from the Act's provisions. Additionally, the imposition of a penalty was contested based on the absence of such a provision in earlier circulars. The petitioner also claimed that construction started in compliance with building rules, even though plans were approved later, validating the construction. The respondent contended that the State Government had the discretion to impose penalties under S. 20 of the Act, citing a previous High Court decision supporting this stance. The definition of "vacant land" under S. 2(q) excludes land with buildings constructed or under construction on the appointed day with appropriate authority approval. In this case, construction was ongoing without approval on the appointed day, despite subsequent approval. The Court held that subsequent approval did not validate the construction on the appointed day, as per the Act's provisions. The Central Government's circular directed exemption for constructions started before the Act's commencement, aligning with the petitioner's case where plans were approved before the Act's enforcement. The respondent argued that the State Government could issue additional guidelines beyond the Central Government's directions. However, the Court emphasized that guidelines could not restrict the Government's power under S. 20(1)(b) to grant exemptions for undue hardship. Imposing a penalty was deemed inconsistent with the Act's purpose of alleviating hardship. The Court clarified that the State Government lacked the authority to impose penalties through circulars without statutory backing. Consequently, the impugned order imposing a penalty during exemption under S. 20(1)(b) was set aside, ruling in favor of the petitioner. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the order imposing a penalty during exemption under S. 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land Act. The judgment emphasized the limitations on the State Government's power to impose penalties without statutory authorization, aligning with the Act's objective of mitigating undue hardship for individuals.
|
