Summary
The Supreme Court sought a larger Bench’s authoritative determination of the meaning of vacant land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The dispute concerned whether mandatory open space under building regulations was excluded, or whether exclusion required a broader prohibition on construction. The Court identified unresolved discordance between earlier decisions and left the parties’ ultimate ceiling calculation and disputed building facts undecided.
Issues
- How Section 2(q)(i) treats land required to remain unbuilt under building regulations.
- Whether the discordance between L.J. Jhonson and B.E. Billimoria required authoritative determination by a larger Bench.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(b), 2(g) and 2(q), especially Section 2(q)(i), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976The scope of the building-regulation exclusion and the significance of the statutory phrase concerning an area required larger-Bench consideration in light of unresolved precedent. (¶¶ 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
Held
- L.J. Jhonson had consciously interpreted the wider statutory scheme, including Section 2(q)(i), although its facts concerned another category. The subsequent treatment in Meera Gupta and the unresolved Angoori Devi reference left interpretive difficulties. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 33)
- There was discordance between Jhonson and the three-judge decision in Billimoria. Whether Billimoria impliedly overruled Jhonson on Section 2(q)(i) remained debatable; Billimoria appeared to support the appellants but did not finally resolve the present controversy. (¶¶ 27, 30, 31, 33, 34)
- The Act’s expropriatory character attracted strict construction. The expression concerning an area in Sections 2(g) and 2(q), together with the statutory object and experience reflected in the repeal legislation, warranted authoritative consideration by a larger Bench. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- Whether an existing building qualified for exclusion was a factual issue reserved for final hearing; the Court did not finally determine the appellants’ surplus land. (¶¶ 14, 37)
Result
Matter directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions concerning larger-Bench consideration. No final determination of the appeal or ceiling calculation.