LALA JEETMAL KAPOOR TRUSTversusSTATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ANR.

A.                   LALA JEETMAL KAPOOR TRUST
                                  v.
                   STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ANR.

                                DECEMBER 8, 1992

B        [L.M. SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

           Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: Sections 2(q)(i),6,8,9
     and 2o-Land dedicated to public purpose-Acquisition of-Whether entitled
     to exemption-Area meant for construction of roads and public-Whether to
C    be excluded- Directions issued.

            A draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling
     and Regul.ation) Act, ~976, was issued proposing to acquire 1071.10 sq.
     metres, out of 2071.10 sq. metres of land owned by the appellant·Trust, as
     per the master plan for Southern Kanpur City Extension Scheme No. II
D    notified on 17.1.1921.

           Objections were filed on behalf of the appellant~Trust that the
     layout as proposed by the Trust had been sanctioned by the controlling
     authority, provisions for construction of road and park meant for general
E    public use had also been provided, and an agreement dated 12.4.75 was            ..
     entered into between Kanpur Development Authority and the Trust and
     orders thereon had been passed on 13.10.77, and that an application
     under Section 20 of the Act for exemption had also been made to the
     Government.

F         The objections were overruled, and the direction was given to
     prepare a final statement under Section 9 of the Act.

         · Aggrieved, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, who al·
     lowed the appeal in part holding that the competent authority should have
G    excluded the area meant for roads and the park, in view of sub-clause (i)
     of clause (q) of Section 2 of the· Act, and that the surplus land in the hands
     of the appellant was only 131.10 sq. meters. A writ petition challenging the
     correctness of this order was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the
     appeal, by special leave, by the appellant-Trust.

H          On behalf of the appellant·Trust, it was contended that as of date,
                                         424



                                                                                      j
                      TRUST v. STATE OF U.P. [MOlIAN, J.)                      425

    tht: application for exemption under Section 20 was pending before the A
    Government and should that be decided in his favour, there would be no
    necessity to go into the other questions, and-even otherwise, the inter-
    pretation of Section 2(q)(i) by the High Court was not correct.

          On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the High Court
    was right in its interpretation of Section 2(q)(i), it talked of a building not   B
    being permissible; in other words, where no construction at all could be
    made, and that was not the case in the instant case, and that the pendency
    of the appellant's application for exemption did not bar the High Court
    from going into the merits.

            Disposing of the appeal, this Court                                       c
          HELD: The interest of justice would. be met by issuing the following
    directions:

          (i) It is open to the appellant to pursue the application for exemp- D
    tion under Section 20 of the Act. [427D]

          (ii) Should the appellant succeed in getting the exemption, no fur-
    ther question arises, and [427E]

           (iii) In the event of denial of benefit of exemption, it would be open     E
    to the appellant to challenge the order. While so challenging, the ap~llant
    will be at liberty to canvass the correctness of the finding of the High
    Court with regard to interpretation of Section 2(q)(i) of the Act. (427 F]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2559 of
    1985.                                                                             F
         Fro·m the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.84 of the Allahabad High
    Court in W.P. No. 7160 of 1980.



-           L.K. Bhushan and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellant.

            R.C. Verma for A.K. Goel for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                      G



         MOHAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
    judgment dated 12.11.1984 passed by ·the Allahabad High Court in Civil            H
    426                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7160 of 1980.
          The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

           The appellant-Trust was started in the year 1917 for the benefit of
    poor Khattrey girls. Kanpur Southern City Extension Scheme No. II was
B   notified on 17.1.1921. Under the said Notification the land belonging to the
    Trust was sought to be acquired~ On 25th of April, 1928 a trust deed was
    executed whereby Jeet MaLKapoor, the founder of that Trust, dedicated
    his properties for the benefit of the public.


c under Devi Das. Kapoor the Manager of the said Trust, filed a statement
        Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
    (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the effect that the Trust was the
    owner of plot No. 64, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. On inspection, the Assistant
    Director found that the Trust owned 2071.10 sq. meters in plot No. 64
    which was a vacant land. As per the master plan it was sought to be
D   acquired for residential purposes. On the basis of this inspection a draft
    statement under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued proposing to acquire
    1071.10 sq. meters of vacant land.

          To the above proposal, objections were filed on behalf of that Trust
    that the lay-out as proposed had been sanctioned by the controlling
E   authority. Provisions for construction of road and park meant for general
    public use had also been provided. To this effect, an agi-eement dated
    12.4.75 was entered into between Kanpur Development Authority and the
    Trust, on which orders had come to be passed on 13.10.77. Besides, an
    application under Section 20 of the Act for exemption has also been made
F   to the Government.

          ·These objections were cop.sidered by the competent authority by an
    order dated 21.9.78. The objections were overruled and the direction was
    given to prepare a final statement under Section 9 of the Act.

G         Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge
    of Kanpur who allowed the appeal in part holding that the competent
    authority should have excluded the area for roads and the park in view of
    sub-clause (i) of clause (q) of Section 2 of the Act. Accordingly he held
    that the surplus land in the hands of the appellant was only 131.10 sq.
H   meters. Challenging the correctness of this order a writ petition was

                                                                   "-
                       TRUST v. STATE OF U.P. [MOHAN, J.]                      427

     preferred which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated A
     12.11.84. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

           Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that as on today the
     application for exemption under Section 20 is pending before the Govern·
     ment, should that be decided in his favour there would be no necessity tQ B
     go into the other questions. Even otherwise, the interpretation of Section
     2(q)(i) by the High Court is not correct. That calls for interference by this
     Court.


           Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the High C
     Court was right in its interpretati~n. Section 2(q)(i) talks of a building not
     being permissible; in other word§, where no construction at all can be
     made, That is not the case here. No doubt, the application of the appellant.
     for exemption is pending but that does not mean that the High Court is
     barred from going into the merits.
                                                                                      D

           On a careful consideration of the submissions it appears to us that
     the interest of justice would be met by issuing the following directions:


          1. It is open to the appellant to pursue his application for exemption E
     under Section 20 llf the Act.


           2. Should the appellant succeed in getting the exemption, no further
     questions arises.
                                                                                      F
           3. In the event of the appellant being denied the benefit of exemption

••   it would be open to him to challenge the order. While so challenging, the
     appellant will be at liberty to canvass the correctness of the' finding of the
     High Court with regard to interpretation of Section 2(q)(i) of the Act.
                                                                                      G

              Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to
 -
 '
     costs.


     N.P.V.                                                  Appeal Disposed of.