ivil Appeal Nos
635 642 of 1981
From the Judgment and order dated 192291980 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos
3295 3480 3481 3648 of 1979 668 669889and 1205 of1980
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General GA Shah Hameed Qureshi and MN Shroff for the Appellants
BK Mehta MN Goswami PV Nanavathy and HS Parihar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
These appeals by special leave are filed against the common judgment in eight writ petitions on the file of the High Court of Gujarat
The respondents in these appeals ie the 1000 petitioners in the said writ petitions questioned the applicability of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 Act 33 of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act  to several pieces of land belonging to them situated within the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
They raised three contentions before the High Court i that the Act was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament insofar as the State of Gujarat was concerned ii that the lands in question were not vacant lands as defined in the Act and therefore the proceedings instituted in respect of them under the Act were liable to be quashed and iii that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 which had been initiated in respect of the lands in question should be completed and the Land Acquisition Officer should be directed to pass awards in favour of the respondents
The writ petitions were resisted by the State of Gujarat and despite such opposition the High Court allowed the writ petitions
The High Court negatived the contention of the respondents regarding the legislative competence of Parliament to pass the Act in view of the decision in Union of India etc
vs Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary etc etc
 The High Court however quashed the proceedings instituted under the Act in respect of the aforesaid lands which were pending before the Additional Collector and the Competent Authority Ahmedabad
While the High Court declined to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer before whom the proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were pending as he had not been made a party to the writ petitions it however made a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings did not suffer from any infirmity
Indirectly the High Court indicated that the land acquisition proceedings should be proceeded with
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellants have filed these appeals by special leave
The principal question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the lands in question are the lands to which the Act would apply
The Act came into force with effect from 1721976
The object of the Act as can be seen from its preamble is to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit to regulate the constructions 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 the common good
Section 3 of the Act which may be considered to be the key section of the Act pro 1001 vides that except as otherwise provided in the Act on and from the commencement of the Act no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies under sub section 2 of section 1
The State of Gujarat is one of the States to which the Act has been made applicable by virtue of the provisions in sub section 2 of section 1 of the Act
The ceiling limit is prescribed by section 4 of the Act
The expression vacant land  is defined in section 2q of the Act thus 2q 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 building and iii in an area where there are no building regulations the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before or is being constructed on the appointed day and the land appurtenant to such building Provided that where any person ordinarily keeps his cattle other than for the purpose of dairy farming or for the purpose of breeding of live stock on any land situated in a village within an urban agglomeration described as a village in the revenue records then so much extent of the land as has been ordinarily used for the keeping of such cattle immediately before the appointed day shall not be deemed to be vacant land for the purposes of this clause
 Section 6 of the Act requires every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act to file a statement before the competent authority having jurisdiction on the area in which the land is situated
Section 7 of the Act is ancillary to section 6 of the Act
Section 8 of the Act provides for the preparation of the draft statement as regards the vacant land held by any person in 1002 excess of the ceiling limit and for calling for objections from the owner to the said statement
It also empowers the competent authority to consider the objections raised by the owner of the land and to pass such order as it deems fit
After the disposal of the objections the competent authority is required by section 9 of the Act to make the necessary alterations in the draft statement in accordance with the orders passed on the objections aforesaid and to determine the vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit
A copy of the draft statement as so altered as the final statement under section 9 of the Act
After the service of the final statement prepared under section 9 of the Act on the person concerned the competent authority is required to acquire the land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein
Section 11 of the Act provides for payment of compensation in accordance with the principles contained therein
The Act contains provisions regarding the constitution of the Urban Land Tribunal and makes provisions for appeal to the Urban Land Tribunal and also a second appeal to the High Court
Section 19 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of sub section 2 thereof nothing in Chapter III of the Act would apply to vacant lands held by the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority or corporation or other institution specified therein
Section 15 of the Act imposes ceiling limit on future acquisition of vacant lands also
It is not necessary to refer to the several other provisions in the Act except section 42 thereof
Section 42 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom usage or agreement or decree or order of a court tribunal or other authority
Thus the Act is given an overriding effect
We have already given the definition of the expression vacant land  found in section 2q of the Act
Vacant land  means any land which is not being used mainly for the purpose of agriculture
But it 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 building and iii in an area where there are no building regulations the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before or is being constructed on the appointed day and the land appurtenant to such building
The proviso to the definition in section 2q of the Act 1003 provides that where any person ordinarily keeps his cattle other than for the purpose of dairy farming or for the purpose of breeding of live stock on any land situated in a village within an urban agglomeration described as a village in the revenue records then so much extent of the land as has been ordinarily used for the keeping of such cattle immediately before the appointed day shall not be deemed to be vacant land for the purposes of this clause
The expression appointed day  is defined in section 2a of the Act
Under that clause appointed day  means in relation to any State to which the Act applied in the first instance the date of introduction of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Bill 1976 in Parliament and in relation to any State which adopts the act under clause 1 of Article 252 of the Constitution the date of such adoption
So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned the appointed date is the date of introduction of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Bill 1976 in Parliament since the Act became applicable to the State of Gujarat at the first instance by virtue of section 12 of the Act
The first contention raised by the respondents namely that the lands in question were agricultural lands under the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 and therefore they were not vacant lands under the Act was rejected by the High Court itself and we need not dwell on it in these appeals since the said contention has not been raised before us
The second contention raised by the respondents who were petitioners before the High Court was that the lands in question were lands on which the construction of buildings was not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which the lands were situated and therefore they were outside the scope of the expression vacant land 
In other words the contention was that as the lands in question were lands which came within the scope of sub clause i of clause q of section 2 of the Act they could not be treated as vacant lands
Three grounds were urged in support of the above contention and they were based on the existence of a town planning scheme namely the Town Planning Scheme No 29 framed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 which was in force at the relevant time
The first ground urged in this behalf by the respondents before the High Court was that permission to build on the lands in question could not be granted by the authorities concerned as they had been included within the green belt  around the city of Ahmedabad under the Town Planning Scheme and hence they were not vacant lands
This plea was not accepted by the 1004 High Court because the proposal to retain the green belt  had been abolished in the year 1975 and the restrictions on building if any on those lands on that account were no longer in existence
The second ground urged before the High Court was that on the coming into force of the Town Planning Scheme No 29 framed under the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 no building activity was permissible on the aforesaid lands because the said lands had been reserved for a public purpose namely construction of Government staff quarters
In support of this submission reliance was placed on section 29 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954
The relevant part of section 29 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 reads as follows Restriction after declaration for town planning scheme
291
On or after the date on which the local authority s declaration of intention to make a scheme under section 22 or the notification issued by the State Government under section 24 is published in the Official Gazette a no person shall within the area included in the scheme erect or proceed with any building or work or remove pull down alter make additions to or make any substantial repair to any building part of a building a compound wall or any drainage work or remove any earth stone or material or sub divide any land or change the user of any land or building unless such person has applied for and obtained the necessary permission which shall be contained in a commencement certificate granted by the local authority in the form prescribed     The High Court treating section 291a of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 as a building regulation within the meaning of that expression used in sub clause i of clause q of section 2 of the Act was of the view that the ban contained in clause a of section 291 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 brought the lands in question within sub clause i of clause q of section 2 of the Act
Assuming for purposes of argument that section 291a of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 amounted to a building regulation it cannot be said that the construction of buildings on the land in question was not permissible at all
Section 291a of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 only required a person who owned a piece of land situated within an 1005 area included in the scheme to obtain the permission from the local authority before erecting or constructing any building or pulling down or altering any building as provided therein
Merely because section 291a of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 requires a person owning the land to which a scheme applied to obtain permission of the local authority to construct a building on it it cannot be said that the land was one on which construction of building was not permissible
The embargo in question was not total
It was only where the ban was complete it could be said that no construction was permissible on the land
The High Court omitted to notice that the owners were entitled to construct buildings on the lands after the permission was accorded by the local authority
The finding of the High Court that by virtue of section 291a of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 the lands fell outside the definition of vacant land  in the Act is therefore unsustainable
It was no doubt true that the State Government had issued a notification dated March 31 1976 published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated April 8 1976 under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 stating that the lands in question were likely to be needed for a public purpose namely for providing housing accommodation for the employees of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and that after making an enquiry under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the State Government had issued declaration under section 6 of that Act declaring that the aforesaid lands along with other lands were needed for the public purpose referred to above
In the meanwhile the Act came into force with effect from 1721976
The respondents filed statements before the competent authority under section 6 of the Act including the lands in question which were in excess of the ceiling limit which each of them could retain after the coming into force of the Act
Thereafter they filed the above writ petitions out of which these appeals arise contending that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be proceeded with and the acquisition of proceedings of the surplus land under the ceiling law should be dropped
In this connection the respondents relied upon the provisions contained in section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in which clause seventhly  stated that any outlay or improvements on or disposal of the land acquired commenced made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of publication of the notification under section 4 sub section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should not be taken into consideration by the Court at the time of determining compensation payable under the said Act
The argument of the respondents was that 1006 clause seventhly  in section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 again amounted to an embargo on construction of buildings on the lands which attracted sub clause i of clause q of section 2 of the Act and therefore the lands were not vacant lands
Reliance was placed by the respondents on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Smt
Shanti Devi vs The Competent Authority under UL C  R Act 1976 Delhi and others AIR 1980 Delhi 106 in which the High Court of Delhi had taken the view that a land in respect of which a notification under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 had been issued was a land on which construction of buildings was not permissible and was thus outside the definition of the expression vacant land  in section 2q of the Act
The reason given by the Delhi High Court for reaching the above conclusion is set out in para 12 of the said decision
It reads thus 12
It is pertinent to note that the land in Sant Nagar is under threat of acquisition by issue of section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
This is not denied by the respondents
In this view of the matter also building activity would not be permissible as no prudent person would construct on land already notified under section 4 of the said Act because he will get no compensation for it unless the construction is made with the permission of the Land Acquisition Collector
For all intents and purposes the effect of section 4 notification therefore is that building activity is not permissible in Sant Nagar
This would also result in excluding the Sant Nagar plots from the total holding of the petitioner for the purposes of computing vacant land under the Act With great respect to the High Court of Delhi it has to be stated that the view taken by it is wholly incorrect
The High Court of Delhi omitted to notice that in order to exclude a land from the definition of vacant land  it should be shown that it was a land on which construction of a building was not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land was situated
The question whether a piece of land is a vacant land or not does not depend upon the fact whether a prudent man would put up a building on that land or not after the issue of a notification under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
Nor a land will cease to be a vacant land merely because the permission of certain authority is to be taken to put up a building thereon
It may be further seen that what clause seventhly  in section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 provides is that any 1007 outlay or improvements on or disposal of the land acquired commenced made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act shall not be taken into consideration while awarding compensation
It does not ban the construction of any building on the land which is so notified
The High Court of Gujarat against whose judgment these appeals have been filed also committed an error in accepting a similar contention which was urged before them
The declaration made by the High Court in these cases that the land acquisition proceedings did not suffer from an infirmity which indirectly suggests that the proceedings should go on is again erroneous
It is open to the State Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings and to withdraw the lands from acquisition under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
We are informed that the State Government has in fact subsequently withdrawn these lands from acquisition
The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 cannot therefore have any bearing on the question whether the lands in question are vacant lands or not for purposes of the ceiling law contained in the Act
When the lands in question or bulk of them are likely to be acquired under the ceiling law by paying compensation as provided therein it would not be proper to compel the Government to acquire them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
As already stated the Act has the overriding effect on all other laws
It was however urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants that because the lands in question have been reserved under the Town Planning Scheme for purposes of building staff quarters the lands could not be treated as vacant lands
We do not find any substance in this submission because the construction of buildings on the lands in question is permissible though not by the owners of land
Sub clause i of clause q of section 2 of the Act does not provide that a land on which the owner cannot construct a building will cease to be vacant land for purposes of the Act
As long as construction of building can be done on a land by some person or authority the land does not get excluded from the definition of the expression vacant land  under the Act
The lands in question therefore are vacant lands
Before concluding our judgment we wish to refer to the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Prabhakar Narhar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and another AIR 1984 Bombay 122 in which the following passage appears at page 130 1008 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Shanti Devi vs Competent Authority AIR 1930 Delhi 106
In that decision the learned Judges of the Delhi High Court took the view that section 2q of the Act contemplated that the activity of building is not permissible on the date when the land is sought to be dealt with and not at any future time and the possibility that such activity could come to be permitted in future or that there are buildings constructed in the area or that there is no prohibition to construct in an unapproved colony or that there is no permanent prohibition to construct would not be sufficient to treat the land as vacant land  within the meaning of the provision
So far as the decision holds that the relevant date for determination for the purpose of section 2qi of the Act is the date on which the land is sought to be dealt with that is the commencement date referred to in section 3 there can be no dispute
In a part of the decision the Division Bench seems to have taken the view that land notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act must be held to be one on which construction of buildings was not permitted
We are really not concerned with that view so far as the present petitions are concerned but it is sufficient to point out that the correctness of that view has not been accepted by this Court in Dattatraya vs State of Maharashtra 1981 Mah LJ 764 AIR 1981 Bom 326 and in an unreported decision of this Court in DP Dani vs State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No 1650 of 1979 decided on 31st January 1983
In Dattatraya s case the contention was that certain plots of land which were reserved for various public activities such as buildings of primary school high school civil hospital bus terminus etc
under the Town Planning Scheme should be excluded for the purpose of computation of vacant land because according to the petitioners in that case no building activity was permitted on those lands so far as the petitioners were concerned
The Division Bench after referring to the primary object of the Act as set out in the case of Union of India vs Valluri Basavaiah Choudhary AIR rejected the contention that merely because the petitioners are prohibited from constructing any building under the building regulations contained in the Town Planning Scheme the land should not be treated as vacant land
The Division Bench found that if the regulations allowed the 1009 building activity not to a person who holds that land but by public bodies or the State Government then certainly construction of building is permitted either by an individual or even by public authority and cannot be taken out of the definition
 We agree with the observations made in the above case
A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has in The State of UP and another vs Radha Raman Agarwal and another AIR 1987 Allahabad 272 also taken the view that a land will cease to be a vacant land  for purposes of the Act only where the construction of a building on it is wholly impermissible
We agree with the views expressed by the High Courts of Bombay and Allahabad
In the result we allow these appeals set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed in the High Court
There will however be no order as to costs
NVK Appeals allowed


Summary:
The respondent was appointed as a staff artist in the All India Radio under an agreement on contract basis
On November 2 1967 the Government of India passed an order stating that staff artists should be allowed to remain in service upto the age of 55 years and accordingly a clause was added to the agreement executed by the respondent
Clause 4v of the agreement however provided that the respondent s service will be liable to be terminated on six months notice on either side
On October 5 1970 a notice was issued to the respondent intimating that his services would stand terminated on the expiry of six months from the date of that notice
The respondent challenged the validity of the termination notice by a writ petition
A learned Single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court found that the post of staff artists held by the respondent was a civil post  within the meaning of Article 3111 of the Constitution and had the protection of Article 311
Though the authority to terminate the respondent s service emanated from the contract but nevertheless it has the effect of violating Article 3111 of the Constitution
The notice of termination was found void as it did not comply with Article 3112
Hence this appeal
Agreeing with the High Court dismissing the appeal this Court HELD That the staff artists of the All India Radio hold civil posts under the Government and Article 311 of the Constitution is applicable to them
426F