STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ETC. v. L.J. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER ETC

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 897

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, M.P. THAKKAR

Case summary

(I) It is therefore manifest that the challenge to the Act no longer survives. 2 (g), 2 (q) (ii) held that , the owner was entitled to exclude 500 sq.

Judgment text

STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS ETC. v. L. J. -JOHNSONIAND ANOTHER, ETC. September 8, 1983 _ [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ. ) Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976-Sec. 4(9) read with s. 2(g) (ii) and (iU)-lnterpretation of-Land-Partly built and Partly· open-Principles for determining the ceiling are~. Holding of separate plot of open land not necessary to attracts. 4(9). 1 Words & Phrases- /and appurtenant', and •appurtenances'-explained. Thefast respondent in civil appeal No. 2005 of -1982 had a parcel of land measuring 2530 sq. metres with a building coilstructed on. a small portion of it. in an urban agglomeration falling within category D specifiCd in Schedule I of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, As ihe aforesaid first respondent wanted to sell some portion of the open land, he sought permission from the competent authority for that purpose.

The competent authority refused to give permi~sion on the ground that the total area of land in-his· possession exceeded ~he- cieling ~imit of 2000 sq. metres prescribed by the Act for that area. In appeal the District Judge held that the first respondent was entitled to exclude 500 sq. metres in view of the bye-laws prevailing in that area and another 500 sq. metres for the beneficial_and con~ venient enjoyment of the building to satisfy the requirement of the town pl. inning and environmental_purposes and since after 'excluding these portions of the areas there was no excess and the land was not covered by the Act, the refusal of permission by the competent authority was not legally valid. In. writ petition filed by the State the High Court strongly relied ·on the provisions of s. 4(9) read with. s. 2. 2(q)(ii) of the A. ct and upheld the decision of the District Judge.

The State challenged the l-Iigh Court's interpretation of the principles laid down in the Act for computini the ceiling area. The facts of other appeals and petitions were similar. Allowing the appeals and petitions; disapproving the view taken by the District Judge and the High Court; laying-down the method of computing the ceiling area and sending back the cases to con1petent authority ~o get fresh . computations done, HELD : It is clear that there can be only three categories of Urban ·]ands- (1) land Which is entirely open in the sense that it doe~ not contain any construction of building, [J983) 3 8. C. R, (2) where the entire land is covered by building or dweiling house, and (3) land on a part of which there is a building with or without a dwelling unit thereon and the rest of the land is vacant. [907 F-H] So far as the first category is concerned, no complexity is involved because any open area in excess of 2000 sq.

metres in category D States will be taken over by the Government. For instance, if an open land without cons· truction consists of 6000 sq. metres, the computation of the ceiling area would present no difficulty because 4000 sq. metres will be taken over by the Gover. llment and 2000 sq. metres will be left to the landholder. Secondly, ii the entire land is covered by a building, such an area would completely fall outside the ambit of the Act and· no question of computation would arise. Thirdly, a question arises as to what would happen if there is a Jahd on a part of which there is a btiilding with a dwelling unit and ah area (open land) which is appurtenant thereto is vacant. Section 4(9) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Re gulation) Act, 1976 provides for meeting such a. contingency. [907 H, 908 A-CJ Section 4(9) contemplates. that if a. person holds yacant land as aJso other portion of land oil which there is a building with a dwe11ing unit, the extent ofland occupied by.

the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land. This subsection has to be read in conjunction with s. 2. (q) (ii) and (iii), which defines •vacant land'. [908 D-G] The plain language in which sub-s. (9) of s. 4 had been expressed clearly shows that when the legislature used. the word 'appurtenant', it meant to qualify the land which was occupied by the building. The words 'appuftenant thereto' qualify the building which precedes the land. Tf. e expression appurtenant' shows that the legislature intended that in taking into consideration the land, it must be the land not contiguous or close to the building but the very land on which the building stands. Similarly, the words 'other land occupied by the building' also lead to the same conclusion.

[909 H, 910 A-BJ Taking the legal and dictionary meaning of the word 'appurtenant' or 'appurtenances' the inescapable c:;onclusion is that the words 'either other land or appurtenances~ are meant to indicate that the land in question should form an integral part of the main land containing the building in question. [911 E-FJ Words & Phrases, Legally Defined (Vol. I-2nd Edn. ) at p. 105; Words & Phrases, Judicially Defined (Vol. I); Words & Plirases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 3A) at p. 546 and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Third Edn. , ·at p. 176 J,_referred to. Bearing- in mind the well settled rule of construction that the language of a beneficial statute must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and· advance its object there could be no other interpretation of the words "appurte. :. Dant or other land" than that the. land appurtenant means not a land conti~o. us \J. P. STATE v. L. J. JOHNSON 899 • - . sTAi'E v. L. 1.

raoi-lsoN 901 February, 1981, 9th, 11th, 13th March, 1981, 2nd, 8th, 11th, 18th, 21st May, 1981, 7th, 20th July, 1981, 7th August, 1981, 25th, 28th, 29th September, 1981, 12th,· 15th, 16th, 19th, 21th, 23rd Octo• ber, 1981, 2nd, 3rd 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 23rd, 24th. 27th November, 1981, ! st, 2nd, 23r_d December, 1981, 11th, 18th, 26th February, 1982, ! st, 15th March, 1982,, 5th April,· 1982, 21st and 27th, May, 1982 of The Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 3689/77, 7722/79, 6315, 6319, 6322, 6326, 6327, 6329, 5059, 5060, of 1979, 7392/78, 6286/78, 8264, 8265, 8260, 8651, 8654, 8655, 8659, 8660, 8661, 8696, 8697, 8698, 8765, 8766, 8767, 8773, 8774, 8653, 8259, 8210, 8258, 6288, 6690, 8263, 7394-95, 6287, 4104, 6302, 7393, 7739, 7743, 7744.

of 1978, 4902/79, 339/79, 1167/78, 1860/78, 4772-4776/79, 2976/76, 8647, 4106/78, 5217/77, 8257/78, 8268, 8652, 8656, 8658, 8699, 8769, 7399, 7400, 7401, 8261, 8270, 8274, 6283, 6693, 4248, 5828, 6695/78, 1387, 3262, 537, 1459/79, 5820, 4249, 1086, 5081, 3028, 4726-28/79, 6692, 6694, 5824/78, 3027, 3030, 3031, 3032,. 3033, 3035/79, 1449/77, 5827/78, 4105/78, 5825/78, 5237, 6189, 6633, 6634/79, 7396/77, 6190, 7049, 5232, 5233, 5234-38, 4903/79, 8768/78, 1612, 2316, 2312, 2775, 2776-78/79, 8271-72/78, 1385, 1390, 1391, 1446-51, 2513·15, 2520, 2521, 1388-89, 1391, 2530, 2869, 1467-75, 2529, 1123, 2779-81, 2808, 3263-3264, 3658, 3307, 345/79, 10359, 10353-58, 10360/78, 2516-18, 2522 and 2532, 1451-1462, 1464-1466, 1455-60/7745/78, 344/79, 1184, 1586, 5823, 5833178, 694, 697-712, 841-842, 843, and 893/79, 2060-67, 2D68·2070, 8267' 442, 443, 446-52, 481, 538/79, S829·32, 8862-8864, 8910, 8912/78, 340-42/79, 5192, 5225, 5822, 6282, 6184-85, 6303, 7731, 7742/78, 2953-56, 2519, .

3654-55, 1548, 1705, 1708·09, 8833, 6314, 6318, 6321, 3402, 1706-07, 1710/79, 5831/78, 7993, 6339, 6331, - ' 6333·36, 6338, 6340, 9432, 9431, 8345, 9430, 7989/79, 4247/78, 10558/79, 2883/80, 596, 2689, 2888, 1938, 2581, 2580, . 5364/80, 10563, 5830/79, 3245/80, 7738/79, 447/80, 2755, 1712, 2895, 7173/80, 8510/19, 1939/801 7429, 7903, 3604, 6190, 7911, 3338, 1937, 3933/80 8273/70, 5369/80, 7163/so, 356/81, 2803, 2&04-06, 212s1s1, 595/80'. 2803/79, 2804, 3656/79, 10723/80, 9382, 8430, 8192, 9595, 8286, 8429, 9383/80, 6625/81, 6626, 6624, 5600/88, 7983/80, 11296/80, 8408/81, 5257/80, 10093/80, 1453/79, 1942/80, 1943, 1940, 2352, 7172, 52(i0/80, 9134/78, 4456/79, 9744/78, 4107/7&, 2790, 517580/80, 64618!

, 6609/80, 5257/79, 650/81, 10406/80, 338, 8278, S456/79, 8262/78, 6332/79, 35,55, 250, 9629/81, 442/80, 648/81, 5258,' 5253, 196/81, 3244/79, 5256, 6354, 2392/81, 8277/79, 8348/79, 6353, 7714, 7726, 6352, 6317/81, 8347, 3034/79, 1454/80, 10633/80, 8879/80, 14320/81, 1063/8Q, 6064/79, 3605/80, 14990/81, 75/82, 2853/82, 3933/80, 3758/82, 8681/81, 5258/80, 7598/80, 7234-35, 7237/80, 2978, 2974/80,. 1956/82, 5256/80, 2831/82, 3430/82, 7594/80. and 2778 of. 79. For The Appellgnts ; Dr. L. M. Singhvl Prathvi Raj, B. P. Maheshwari and B. P. Singh For The Respondents : S. N. Kacker, R. K. Jain Dr. Y. S. Chitale, Dr. Meera Agarwal and R. C. Mishra in CAs. 994 & ! 02H027of1980. ... Pramod Swarup and Arun Madan in CA. 2026-2027 of 1982. A. K. Srivastava in CA. 208-2024 of 1980. S. K. Bisaria, Pradeep Misra and Sudhir Kulshreshlha in CA. 2176/82. R. N. Sharma and N. N. Sharrl}a in CA. 7191/83 @ SLP. 2350/80. Probir Mitra in CA. 2. 178 of 1982.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by f1'ZAL Au, J. Wedded to the ideal of achieving a socialist ·pattern of State and building up an egalitarian society as mandated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India and incorporated in the directive principles contained in part IV, which are indeed the heart and soul of the Constitution as held by this Court on several occasions, the Central Government brought forth the present legis· lation called the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. 33 of. J976) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). To avoid anomalies and controversies, ineqalities and inconsistencies, the Central Government obtained the consent of the State Governments •• so. as to pass a central law which would apply equally t. o all the + States. The Act applies to. the States and Union Territories and contains a schedule (Schedule I) in· which the ceiling of urban tr. P. STATE \>. L,J. JOHNSON (Fazai Ali, J,) 903 areas has been mentioned and which differs .

from area to area in various States and Union territories to which the Act applies. In the first phase at the hearing of the appeals, the constitutional validity of the Act was challenged but the Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the Act in the case of Union of India, etc. v. V. B. Chaudhry etc. etc. (I) It is therefore manifest that the challenge to the Act no longer survives. The Act was sought to be implemented by· the States which empowered the competent authority to determine the _ceiling area in accordance with the provisions of the Act· and take over the excess land. In due fairness to the citizens, the Act provides an appeal to a judicial authority (District Judge) to examine the correctness of the decision of the competent authority.

In the instant case the matter has travelled right from the competent authority to the High Court and the case has been placed · before us for judging the c6rrectne;s of the grounds taken by the High Court in determining the excess area of lands which come within the ambit of the ceiling fixed by the Act. We propose to decide all the 200 and odd appeals and the special leave petitions by one common judgment as the question of law relating to the interpretation of the principles contained in the various sections of the Act to determine the ceiling area is more or less common to all the appeals. Before we proceed to detail the relevant provisions of the Act, we would like to point out the aims and objects of the Act in the light of which the pivotal provisions have to interpreted. The aims.

and objects are contained in the Preamble of the Act; the relevant portions of which may be extracted thus : "An Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations,_ for the acquisitions, for the acquisition of such land in ·excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering (I) [1979] 3 S. C. R. 802. therein and with a view to 'brining about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common go'od. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for t)l.

e acquisition of sueh land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons· and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve ! he common good. " The opening words of the preamble, viz. , "An Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations" clearly indicate that the pith and substance of the Act is that a ceiling should be imposed on vacant iands. situated in urban areas which may or may not have building constructed thereon. Side by side the other dominant object to be achieved seems to be to prevent the concentration of urban .

land in the hands of a few persons so as to checkmate speculation and profiteering therein on the one hand and to bring about an equitable distribution of land amongst the urban population. The second clause of the preamble merely repeats and stresses what is contained in the opening part. Analysing, therefore, the real object which the Act . seeks to achieve, it seems to us that the provisions have to be construed against the background of two important considerations : - (I) tha. t the vacant land must be situated in an urban rather than a rural area, and (2) that even in those portions of urban land which contain buildings, substantial relief should be given to the owner for the beneficlal . enjoyment of the property left with him so that the Act may not be dubbed as being of a confiscatory nature. ·Moreover, the Act governs only urban vacant lands. or lands which contain building or dwelling units or outhouses and the areas i:J. i>. STATE v. L. 1. JOHNSON (Fazal Ali, J. ) 90$ .

' se. t apart in compliance with the respective byelaws have to be taken into account while computing the ceiling area applicable to the towns and territories concerned. · Before discussing the problem in L. J. Johnson's case which has given tise to these appeals, we would first like to give a birds eye , view of the various provisions of the Act which are relevant to th~ decisions of these appeals. The relevant provisions in this case are sections 2(c), 2(q)(ii), 3 and 4(9). Section 2(c) states that the 'ceiling limit' means the ceiling limit specified in s. 4(1). This brinj! S us to , s. 4(1) at once. The various clauses'of s. 4(1) (a) to (d) prescribe ceiling limits in urban agglomerations falling within different categories which may be extracted thus : "4(1) - Subject to the other prov! Slons of this.

section, in the case of every person, the ceiling limit shall be- (a) where that vacant land is situated in an urban agglomeration falling within category A specified in Schedule I, five hundred square. metres; I (b) where such land is situated in an urban agglomeration falling within category B specified in Schedule I, one thousand square metres; (c) . where such land is situated in an urban agglome- . ration falling within category C specified iri ' Schedule I, one thousand five hundred square metres; (d) where such land is situated in an urban agglomeration falling within category D specified in Schdeule I, two thousand square metres. " In the instant case, we are concerned with the land in the town of Dehradun situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was• the subject matter of the writ petition before the Allahabad High . Court. It is indisputable that the land in Johnson's case (supra) falls under category D where the celing limit is 2000 sq. metres.

The only problem which is requireq to be resolved in these. group of, appeals by special leave by and large concerns the interpretation of s. 4, sub-s. (9) of the Act. All the appeals are from. Uttar 906 SUPll&il'.! COuRT REPORTs (l983i 3s. C. R, Pradesh but the principles laid down by us would apply to all the States and Union Territories. In fact, the substratum and the fate of the case depends on the outcome of the appeal arising out of Sta. le of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. L. J. Johnson & Anr. (I) decided- by the Allabhabad High Court and which has been taken as a sample case so tha! other appeals would merely follow the decision in Johnson's case (C. A. No. 2005/82 in this Court). There are some other cases like C. A. No.

995;80 where the facts llnd principles may differ but we do not intend to decide or go into the intricacies of the other points involved therein and will leave the competent authority to determine the excess land in the context of other points and in the light of the law laid down by us. In these appeals, we are mainly concerned with the interpretation of s. 4 (9) and the allied construction of s. 2(g) and 2(q) (iii) of the Act and their impact on s. 4(9). It follows, therefore, that once the view taken in. Johnson's case in regard to this question is reversed all the matters will have to go back to the competent authority for a decision in the light of the view taken by this Court. This will be the ultimate outcome because in all the allied matters there is only a cryptic order disposing of the concerned matter in accordance with the view -taken by the High Court in Johnsan's case in regard to the interpretation of s. 4 (9).

The remaining questions raised by the land-holders will have to be resolved and the actual computation of excess land, if any, would have to be undertaken by the competent authority on remand. Before going into the merits ·of Johnson's case we may briefly narrate the admitted facts. It appears that the respondent (Johnson) had a parcel of land, the total area of which was 2530 sq. metres on which there was a building. After the coming into force of the Act. he wanted to sell some portion of the open land in. his possession to Maj. Gen. Prem Chandra, a resident of Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, The competent authority refused permission to sell on the ground that the total area in possession of Johnson being 2530 sq. metres, it exceeded the ceiling ·limit and therefore no permission to sell could be given. Johnson thereafter filed an appeal before the District Judge assailing the decision oftbe competent authority as being based + on a wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act.

The District (I) (1978) All. L. J, 1222. U. P. STATE v. L. 1. JOHNSON (Faza/ Ali, J. ) 907 Judge after considering the provisions of s. 2 (g), 2 (q) (ii) held that , the owner was entitled to exclude 500 sq. metres in view of the byelaws prevailing in Dehradun and anothe'r 500 sq. metres for the beneficial and convenient enjoyment of the · building to satisfy the requirement of town planning and environmental purposses. This, according to the District Judge, fiowed as a logical consequence of s. 2 (g) of the Act. Ultimately, the district judge held that after ~xcluding the portions of areas indicated ab. ove, there was no excess " > and the land was not covered by the Act and the . refusal of permission by the competent authority was not legally valid.

Against the decision·of the District Judge, the State filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the interpretation placed by the District Judge was wrong and the pompetent authority was fully justified in computing the area. The High Court strongly relied on the provisions of s. 4 (9) read with s. 2(q)(ii) and upheld the decision of the District Judge and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. After this decision, a number of petitions were filed before the High Court which were decided by it in the light of the decision taken in Johnson's case. Before proceeding to s. 4 (9) of the Act, we might mention as a prelude the nature, character and the spirit of the Act. The Act applies only to urban areas and not to any other area. Secondly, the statute fixes the ceiling limit in various ·urban areas of all the States where the Court has to determine the extent of the ceiling. It is clear that there can be only three categories of Urban lands- (i) land .

which is entirely open in the sense that it does 11 not contain any construction or building, (2) where the entire land is covered by building or dwelling house, and· (3) land on a part of which- there is a buil! ling with or without a dwelling unit thereon and the rest of the land is vacant, So far as the first category is concerned, no complexity is in- R volved because any open area in excess of 2000 sq. metres fa category -+ D States will be taken over by the Government. For insta. nce, if an open land without construction consists of 6000 sq. meters, the computation o. f the ceiling area would present no difficulty because 4000 iq. metres wi)l be taken· over by the Government and. 2000 sq. metres will be left to the landholder. Secondly, if the entire land is covered by a building, such an area would completely fall outside the ambit of the Act and no question of computation would arise.

Thirdly, a question arises as to what would happen if there is a land on a part of which there is a building with a dwelling unit and an area (open land) which is appurtenant thereto is vacant. This category of land would doubtless present some difficulty in making the computation and the principl. es on which such computation is to be ma. de. Section 4 (9) is designedly and artistically drafted to meet such a contingency which may be extracted thus:- "Where a person holds vacant land and also holds any other land on which there is a building with a dwell- . · ing unit therein, the extent ofsuch other land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall also be taken into account . in calculating the extent of vaca11t land held by such pe;son. " (EmphaSJs supplied) >- In. order to understand the import of s. 4 (9) it may be necessary to extract clauses (i) and (ii) of s. 2 (q) which run thus : "(q).

'Vacant land' means land, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include- ' (i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated ; (ii) in an area where there are building· regulations the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on, the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority and the land appurtenant to such builing ; and ... " + Clause (i) gives a blanket exemption to any land situated in an urban area where the entire area is covered by land on which it is not permissible to raise a building which will not be deemed to be U. P. STATE v. L. J. JOHNSON (Fazal Ali, J. ) 909 vacant land within the meaning of s. 2 (q). This is because such land in ·an urban area cannot be used for building p~rposes but being ... vacant falls beyond the purview of the Act.

Clause (ii) postulates that where a land is occupied by any building constructed before or on the appointed day ('appointed day' has been defined in s. 2 (a) of the Act) and there is some vacant land appurtenant to the said building, land which is built upon and any area which is left out in accordance .. with the building regulations would not be included in the ceiling area. The term 'land appurtenant to such building' would mean the contiguous land which remains after giving full allowance for the area left out under the municipal or building regulations subject to a maximum of 500 sq. metres and another 500 sq. metres which may be left for the beneficial use of the owner. The words 'land appurtenant' used in s. 4 (9) takes us to its connotation as defined in s.

(2) (g) (i) and (ii) which may· be extracted thus : "(g) 'land appurtenant',· in relation to any building, means- (i) in an area where there are building regulattons, the minimum extent of land required under such regula• tions to be kept as open space for the enjoyment of ·such building·, which in no case shall exceed five hundred sq\lare metres ; or (ii) in an area where there are no. building regulations an extent of five hnndred square metres contiguous to the land occupied by such building, and includes, in the case of any building constructed before the appointed day with a dwelling unit therein, an additional extent not exceeding five hundred square metres of land, If any, contiguous to the minimum extent referred to in sub-clause (i) or the extent referred to in sub-clause (ii), as the case may be;" It may, however, be necessary to explain the terms 'land appurtenant' or 'other land' as used in s. 4 (9) ands.

2(g) (ii) as wrong interpretation of these terms by the High Court has made confusion worse confounded. To begin with, the plain language in which ~ub-s. (9) of s. 4 has been expressed clearly shows that when \he le(! lS]ature use • 8 Eastern Oxygen and Acetylene Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh(') . seems to have taken a c. orrecl view in holding that nothing turns upon whether or not the landholder'holds open land and a separate parcel of land with a dwelling unit thereon. The ljigh Courtj in para- . graph 5 rightly pointed out that ·it will necessitate reading the words "not contiguous to the vacant land" after the words "any other land" in sub-section (9) of s. 4 and such qualifying words cannot be read into the provision by implication.

If this be the interpretation then it would mean that if there is a boundary wall which separates the construction from the open land, the land would be within the purview of the ceiling and if there is no such wall it would fall outside the purview. Such an interpretation, would lead to a most absurd and anomalous situation, The Madhya Pradesh High Court was, therefore, fully justiibd in expressing its dissent from judgment of the Allahabad High Court. We fully endorse the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Col\rt II Where, however, it is found that any person holds vacant land in two or more categories of urban agglomerations specified in Schedule I, the computation and determination of ceiling area is to be done in accordance with the formula laid down in cl. (a) to (d) of. s. 4 (1) of the Act. F·· In fine, therefore, the position in the instant case, as already · pointed out by us, is that even taking into account the concessions and exemptions granted to.

Johnson, the landholder, the land in his possession exceeds the ceiling of 2000 sq. metres by 530 sq. metres which will have to be declared as surplus. Before concluding we might dwell on one more aspect of the matter which flows as a logical corollary of our interpretation of the · various provisions of the Act ; Where a person has·several plots, some completely vacant and some partly built and partly vacant, a question may arise as to how (1) A. I. R. 1981 M. P. 17, • 9i6 StiPREME COtiRT REPORTS (1983] ~ s. c. ll.. \ the computation of the ceiling area is to be made in such cases.. This . , presents no difliculty in view\ of what· we have fully discussed in our judgment because it is manifest that the legislature intended to leave with the landholder only the area of 2000 sq. metres in category D area or the various ceiling areas mentioned in different categories of ' s. 4 (! ) of the Act.

It is manifest that in such cases the competent authority will have to total the entire area of the lands in various places, completely vacant or partly built ·and partly vacant and permit the landholder to retain 2000 sq. metres or less as provided in, clauses (a) to (d) of s. 4 (I) and give the landholder the option (as provided under s. 6) to select the area which he desires to retain provided that does not exceed the ceiling limit. > By way of postscript we might dwell on certain consequences of the legislation flowing from the interpretation which we have put' on the. various provisions of the Act. The Act being a social piece of legislation should have been implemented long ago but as its constitutional validity was. challenged, which was decided by this Court only in 1979 as indicated above, the. operation of the Act remained stayed.

The second phase however began when the· correctness o( the manner in which computation was to be made as held by the Allahabad High Court was challenged by the State which also we 1 have now decided in this judgment. We hope and trust that all the States will now go ahead with implementing the. Act and take over the excess land. in order to distribute them according . to the tenor, spirit and provisions of the Act. Any further delay is likely to . defeat the very object for which the Act was passed. · For the reasons given above, we allow all these petitions and appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and send back the cases to the competent authority to get fresh compulatious done in all the cases and then determine the. ceiling area in the light of the principles enunciated and the law laid down by us. Civil appeal No. 995 of 1980 is also remanded to the competent authority for redetermination of the ceiling area as indicated above. In the cireumstances of the cas.

e, tnere will be no order as to costs. H. S. K. Appeals and petitions dismissed.