1982 on the facts of the case in order to determine the computation of the ceiling area first exclude the built area which is 464 sq metres and then exclude the deductions allowed under section 2g ie 1000 sq metres
Therefore the total deduction would be 1464 sq metres which is within the ceiling limit of 2000 sq metres but as actual area is 2530 sq
metres the excess would be 530 sq metres which will be taken over by the State 914 C E  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos
200582 995 1021 27180 2927 2881 2006 07 2008 24 2025 2026 27 2028 2029 2030 33 2176 2179 2180 84 2234 2235 2241 2178 3224 28 and 283282 and 6840 6943 6842 6846 6847 52 6855 6860 6861 6863 6870 6871 6873 80 6882 6889 6890 92 6881 6845 6872 6883 6888 6899 6915 6918 6919 22 6923 6943 6945 54 6969 76 7174 7200 7342 7347 7202 45 7247 54 7257 83 7296 7297 to 7311 7313 7314 7333 7201 7335 7340 8211 8217 8218 23 8224 8230 8231 8243 8245 8256 8261 8260 8262 8265 8296 8329 8337 59 8375 76 8377 8377C 8378 8385 of 1983
Appeals by Special leave  by Certificate from the Judgments and orders dated the 30th October 1978 8th November 1978 12 15 16th January 1979 8th 12th 17th 21st 23rd February 1979 2nd 5th 12th 26th 30th March 1979 2nd 4th 17th 23rd 25th 26th April 1979 2nd 7th 9th 10th 16th May 1979 4th 5th 6th 10th 13th 16th 23rd July 1979 11th 14th 18th 26th September 1979 24th October 1979 5th 8th and 21st November 1979 10th 12th 18th December 1979 and 15th 16th 21st January 1980 14th 17th 18th 20th 21st 26th 27th and 28th March 1980 1st 15th 30th April 1980 5th May 1980 30th June 1980 4th 5th 14th 19th 20th and 28th August 1980
 2nd 5th 15th September 1980 12th January 1981 10th 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 21st 23rd October 1981 2nd 3rd 4th 6th 11th 12th 13th 17th 23rd 24th
27th November 1981 1st 2nd 23rd December 1981 11th 18th 26th February 1982 1st 15th March 1982 5th April 1982 21st and 27th May 1952 of The Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Nos 368977 772279 6315 6319 6322 6326 6327 6329 5059 5060 of 1979 739278 628678 8264 8265 8266 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 490279 33979 116778 186078 4772 477679 297676
8647 410678 521777 825778 8268 8652 8656 8658 8699 8769 7399 7400 7401 8261 8270 8274 6283 6693 4248 5828 669578 1387 3262 537 145979 5820 4249 1086 5081 3028 4725 2879 6692 6694 582478 3027 3030 3031
3032 3033 303579 141977 582778 410578 582578 5237 6189 6633 663479 739677 6190 7049 5232 5233 5234 38 490379 876878 1612 2316 2312 2775 2776 7879 8271 72178 1385 1390 1392 1446 51 2513 15 2520 2521 1388 89 1391 2530 2869 1467 75 2529 1123 2779 81 2868 3263 3264 3658 3307 345179 10359 10353 58 1036078 2516 18 2522 and 2532 1451 1462
1464 1466 1455 60774578 34479 1184 1586 5823 5833178 694 697 712 841 842 843 and 89379 2060 67 2068 2070 8267 442 443 446 52 481 53879 8829 32 8862 8864 8910 891278 340 4279 5192 5225 5822 6282 6284 85 6303 7731 774278 2953 56 2519 3654 55 1548 1705 1708 09 8833 6314 6318 6321 3402 1706 07 171079 583178 7993 6339 6331 6333 36 6338 6340 9432 9431 8345 9430 798979 424778 1055879 288380 596 2689 2888 1938 2581 2580 536480 10563 583079 324580 773879 44780 2755 1712 2895 717380 851079 1939801 7429 7903 3604 6190 7911 3338 1937 393380 827370 536980 716380 35681 2803 2804 06 212581 59580 280379 2804 365679 1072380 9382 8430 8192 9595 8286 8429 938380 662581 6626 6624 560088 798380 1129680 840881 525780 1009380 145379 194280 1943 1940 2352 7172 526080 913478 445679 974478 410778 2790 51758080 646819 660980 525779 65081 1040680 338 8278 545679 826278 633279 3555 250 962981 44280 64881 5258 5253 19681 324479 5256 6354 239281 827779 834879 6353 7714 7726 6352 631781 8347 303479 145480 1063380 887980 1432081 106380 606479 360580 1499081 7582 285382 902 393380 375882 868181 525880 759880 7234 35 723780 2978 297480 195682 525680 283182 343082 759480 and 2778 of 79 For The Appellants Dr LM Singhvi Prathvi Raj BP Maheshwari and BP Singh For The Respondents SN Kacker RK Jain Dr YS Chitale Dr Meera Agarwal and RC Mishra in CAs
994  1021 1027 of 1980
Pramod Swarup and Arun Madan in CA
2026 2027 of 1982
AK Srivastava in CA
208 2024 of 1980
SK Bisaria Pradeep Misra and Sudhir Kulshreshtha in CA
217682
RN Sharma and NN Sharma in CA
719183  SLP
235080
Probir Mitra in CA
2178 of 1982
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI 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 legislation called the Urban Land Ceiling  Regulation Act 1976 Act No 33 of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
To avoid anomalies and controversies inequalities and inconsistencies the Central Government obtained the consent of the State Governments so as to pass a central law which would apply equally to all the States
The Act applies to the States and Union Territories and contains a schedule Schedule I in which the ceiling of urban 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
vs VB Chaudhry etc
etc1 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 correctness 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 interpreta tion 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 904 therein and with a view to brining about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good
WHEREAS it is expedient 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 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 the 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 lands 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 1 that 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 beneficial 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 905 set 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 discusing the problem in LJ Johnson s case which has given rise to these appeals we would first like to give a birds eye view of the various provisions of the Act which are relevant to the decisions of these appeals
The relevant provisions in this case are sections 2c 2qii 3 and 49
Section 2c states that the ceiling limit  means the ceiling limit specified in section 41
This brings us to section 41 at once
The various clauses of section 41 a to d prescribe ceiling limits in urban agglomerations falling within different which may be extracted thus 41 Subject to the other provisions 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 b where such land is situated in an urban agglomeration falling within category specified in Schedule I one thousand square metres c where such land is situated in an urban agglomeration falling within category specified in Schedule I one thousand five hundred square metres d where such land is situated in an urban agglomeration falling within category specified in Schedule 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 where the ceiling limit is 2000 sq metres
The only problem which is required to be resolved in these group of appeals by special leave by and large concerns the interpretation of section 4 sub section
9 of the Act
All the appeals are from Uttar 906 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 State of Uttar Pradesh  Anr
vs LJ Johnson  Anr1 decided by the Allabhabad High Court and which has been taken as a sample case so that other appeals would merely follow the decision in Johnson s case cA No 200582 in this Court
There are some other cases like A No 99580 where the facts and 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 section 4 9 and the allied construction of section 2g and 2q iii of the Act and their impact on section 49
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 section 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 of the competent authority as being based r on a wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act
The District 907 Judge after considering the provisions of section 2 g 2 q ii held that the owner was entitled to exclude 500 sq metres in view of the bye laws prevailing in Dehradun and another 500 sq metres for the beneficial and convenient enjoyment of the building to satisfy the requirement of town planning and environmental purposes
This according to the District Judge flowed as a logical consequence of section 2 g of the Act
Ultimately the district judge held that after excluding the portions of areas indicated above 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 competent authority was fully justified in computing the area
The High Court Strongly relied on the provisions of section 4 9 read with section 2qii 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 section 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 1 land which is entirely open in the sense that it does 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 building 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 involved because any open area in excess of 2000 sq metres in category States will be taken over by the Government
For instance if an open land without construction consists Of 6000 sq
meters the 908 computation of the ceiling area would present no difficulty because 4000 sq metres will 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 principles on which such computation is to be made
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 dwelling unit therein the extent of such other land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person Emphasis supplied In order to understand the import of section 4 9 it may be necessary to extract clauses i and ii of section 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 Gland 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   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 909 vacant land within the meaning of section 2 q
This is because such land in an urban area cannot be used for building purposes 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 section 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 section 4 9 takes us to its connotation as defined in section 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 regulations the minimum extent of land required under such regulations to be kept as open space for the enjoyment of such building which in no case shall exceed five hundred square metres or ii in an area where there are no building regulations an extent of five hundred 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 tub clause ii as the case may be It may however be necessary to explain the terms land appurtenant  or other land  as used in section 4 9 and section 2g ii as a wrong interpretation of these terms by the High Court has made confusion worse confounded
To begin with the plain language in which sub section
9 of section 4 has been expressed clearly shows that when the legislature used the word appurtenant  it meant to qualify the 910 land which was occupied by the building
The words appurtenant thereto  qualify the building which precedes the land
The 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 viz that the other land will not be land in some other plot but refers only to the very land a portion of which is occupied by the building
In Words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol
I 2nd Edn at p 105 it is clearly mentioned that land  do not usually pass under the word appurtenances  with reference to other land in its strict sense but they do pass if it appears that the word is used in a larger sense Land has been held to pass under this word where is a gift of a house with its appurtenances
There has been a distinction between a gift of a land with appurtenances and a gift with the land appertaining thereto
A chose in action does not ordinarily pass as appurtenant to other property 
The word appurtenance  has been further defined thus Appurtenance in relation to a dwelling or to a school college or other educational establishment includes all land occupied therewith and used for the purposes thereof 
The word appurtenances  has a distinct and definite meaning and though it may be enlarged by the context
yet the burden of proof lies on those who so contend Prima facie it imports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject matter of the device or grant and which would
in truth pass without being specially mentioned Similarly at page 220 in Words and Phrases Judicially Defined vol
I the word appurtenances  has been defined thus The word appurtenances  includes all the incorporeal hereditaments attached to the land granted or demised such as rights of way of common or piscary and the like but it does not include lands in addition to that granted Emphasis supplied Likewise in Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Vol 3A at p 546 the word appurtenances  has been explained thus 911 The word appurtenances  which is ordinarily used in connection with real property while strictly confined to those incorporeal hereditaments that are commonly annexed to land and houses includes corporeal articles of personal property Appurtenances  as used in a deed of trust of certain real estate conveying all and singular the tenements hereditaments and appurtenances  thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining means things belonging to another thing as principal and which pass as incident to the principal thing Emphasis supplied In Stroud s judicial Dictionary Third edn at page 176 the word appurtenances  has been defined thus By the grant of a messuage or a messuage with the appurtenances doth pass no more than the dwelling house barn dove house and buildings adjoining orchard garden yard field or piece of void ground lying near and BELONGING to messuage and houses adjoining to the dwelling house and the close upon which the dwelling house is built at the most Thus taking the legal and dictionary meaning of the word appurtenant  or appurtenances  the inescapable conclusion 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
The Allahabad High Court therefore clearly misdirected itself in putting a wrong and loose interpretation on the words appurtenant or other land 
It is well settled that the language of a beneficial statute must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and advance its object
Bearing this in mind we can see no other interpretation of the words appurtenant or other land  than the one we have indicated above which is that the land appurtenant means not a land contiguous to some other land but the very land which is a part of the same plot or area which contains the building or dwelling house
This also seems to be the avowed object of section 4 9 of the Act
In the ultimate analysis the position is quite clear that s 4 9 contemplates that if a person holds vacant land as also other portion of land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit the extent of 912 Land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall betaken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land
This sub section has to be read in conjunction with section 2 q ii and iii
A combined reading of these two statutory provisions would lead to the irresistible inference that in cases which fall within the third category mentioned above the 1 total area of the land of a landholder is first to be determined and if the total area built or unbuilt falls below 2000 sq metres in category areas there would be no question of any excess land 2 where however there is a building and a dwelling unit then the area beneath the building and the dwelling unit would have to be excluded while computing the ceiling
Further if there are any byelaws requiring a portion of the land to be kept vacant the landholder would be allowed to set apart the said land to the maximum extent of 500 sq metres
He would also be allowed to retain an additional area of 500 sq metres for the beneficial use af the building so that he may enjoy the use of a little compound also for various purposes
After excluding these items if the land falls below the ceiling limit there would be no question of excess but if there is excess that is beyond the ceiling limit the same would have to be taken over by the Government
For instance A has 4000 sq metres of land out of which 2000 sq metres is covered by building then in such a case the landholder will be entitled to keep the whole of the covered area ie 2000 sq metres plus 1000 sq metres 500 under the municipal byelaws and another 500 for beneficial use and the excess would only 1000 sq metres
The scheme of the Act seems to be that if there is a constructed building with a dwelling unit the structure thereon cannot be treated as open land for the purpose of declaring it as an excess land beyond the ceiling limit
Similarly the Land kept open under the municipal regulations upto 500 sq metres and an additional 500 sq metres appurtenant to the land would not be available for being declared as excess land beyond the ceiling limit
The central idea governing this philosophy of putting a ceiling on urban land is that in an urban area none can hold land excess of the ceiling regardless of whether the land is entirely open or whether 913 there is a structure consisting of a dwelling unit thereon subject to the rider mentioned above
Indeed if the intention would have been to take over the entire open land without giving any benefit of appurtenant land to the landholder than the Act would perhaps be liable to be challenged on the ground of being of a confiscatory nature and would fall beyond the permissible limits of the directive principles enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution
Furthermore such an interpretation would discourage new building enterprises or factories or industrial units coming up in the urban areas which would be contrary to the very tenor and spirit of the Act
Coming now to Johnson s case while the High Court of Allahabad was right in interpreting these provisions in so far as it held that the built area plus upto 500 sq
metres allowed under the municipal byelaws and another 500 sq metres as additional area for beneficial enjoyment had to be excluded but it seems to have committed a grave error of law in applying this principle to concrete cases which had come up before it
Further the High Court was absolutely wrong in importing the concept of contiguity on the assumption that section 49 was attracted only if the person concerned held a distinct parcel of land which was vacant land
As discussed above these words do not envisage that there should be land other than the one which contains a building which is to be taken into consideration while computing the excess land but the section really refers to the very land which is a part of the plot which contains the building
The argument that once a plot contains a building the whole of the plot would be exempt from the ceiling area cannot be countenanced on a plain and simple interpretation of section 5qii read with section 49
In fact section 49 itself puts the matter beyond controversy by qualifying the words other land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto 
The expression thereto  manifestly shows that the intention of legislature was to the land on which building or the dwelling unit stands
In other words the vacant land which contains a building would include appurtenant land or any other land situated in that particular plot
We have gone through the judgments of the High Court the District Judge and that of the competent authority and we are not satisfied that all the details which are required for the purpose of determining the ceiling have been mentioned in any of the judgments
So far as Johanson s case is concerned all that is mentioned is that the total area of urban land was 2530 sq metres including the built 914 area
So far as the built area is concerned it is mentioned as 464 sq metres but the details of the calculations have not been given which would have to be redetermined by the competent authority
Even on the facts mentioned in the judgments of the High Court and the courts below the position appears to be as follows 
Total area of the land owned by the landholder is 2530 sq metres
Prima facie 530 sq
metres is above the ceiling limit
In order however to calculate as to whether or not Johson had exceeded the permissible limit we have to compute in the following manner First exclude the built area which is 464 sq
metres it is not clear whether 464 includes the area of servant quarters also which are also mentioned to be existing there
Then exclude the deductions allowed under section 2g
ie 1000 sq metres
Therefore the total deduction would be 1464 sq metres which is within the ceiling limit of 2000 sq metres but as the actual area is 2530 sq
metres the excess would be 530 sq metres which will be taken over by the State
The High Court seems to have made a wrong calculation by not relying on section 49 and in wrongly importing the concept of other land  being a distinct plot
This however is not permissible
The landholder cannot have it both ways
He cannot take the benefit of the exclusion and then add that benefit to the total ceiling area in order to compute the excess
For these reasons therefore we p do not agree with the view taken by the High Court or the District Judge regarding the computation of the ceiling area
To sum up the effect of the view taken in Johnson s case virtually comes to this
Section 49 would be attracted regardless of whether the landholder owned a distinct part of land on which there is no construction alongwith any other parcel of land where there is some construction alongwith any other parcel of land where there is some construction
In other words whether or not there is a surplus will not depend on whether the landholder holds a separate plot of land which is open land
To take the other view is to hold that if there is no separate plot but the construction is in the same plot then even if the entire plot comprises 10000 sq metres that would fall beyond the purview of section 49 if the 915 structure is built only on 1000 sq metres of land
Such an interpretation of section 49 cannot be accepted by us as it goes against the very spirit and intent of the Act and allows the landholder to escape the ceiling area by merely putting a construction on a plot of land owned by him
On the other hand the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ms gr Eastern oxygen and Acetylene Ltd vs State of Madhya Pradesh1 seems to have taken a correct 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 High Court in paragraph 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 section 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 justified in expressing its dissent from judgment of the Allahabad High Court
We fully endorse the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
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 section 4 1 of the Act
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 916 the computation of the ceiling area is to be made in such cases
This presents no difficulty 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 area or the various ceiling areas mentioned in different categories of section 4 1 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 section 4 1 and give the landholder the option as provided under section 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 of the manner in which computation was to be made as held by the Allahabad High Court was challenged by the State which also we 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 computations 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 circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
HSK Appeals and petitions dismissed


Summary:
The first respondent in civil appeal No 2005 of 1982 had a parcel of land measuring 2530 sq metres with a building constructed on a small portion of it in an urban agglomeration falling within category specified in Schedule I of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976
As the 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 permission on the ground that the total area of land in his possession exceeded the cieling limit 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 convenient enjoyment of the building to satisfy the requirement of the town planning 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 a writ petition filed by the State the High Court strongly relied on the provisions of section 49 read with section 2
2qii of the Act and upheld the decision of the District Judge
The State challenged the High Court s interpretation of the principles laid down in the Act for computing 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 competent authority to get fresh computations done
 HELD It is clear that there can be only three categories of Urban lands 1 land which is entirely open in the sense that it does not contain any construction of building 898 2 where the entire land is covered by building or dwelling house and 3 land on a part of which there is a building with or without a dwelling unit thereon ant the rest of the land is vacant
907 F H So far as the first category is concerned no complexity is because any open area in excess of 2000 sq metres in category States will be taken over by the Government
For instance if an open land without construction 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 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 tho 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
Section 49 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 provides for meeting such a contingency
907 H 908 A C Section 49 contemplates that if a person holds vacant land as also other portion of land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit the extent of land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land
This sub section has to be read in conjunction with section 2 q ii and iii which defines vacant land 
908 D G The plain language in which sub section
9 of section 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 appurtenant thereto  qualify the building which precedes the land
The 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 B Taking the legal and dictionary meaning of the word appurtenant  or appurtenances  the inescapable conclusion 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 P Words  Phrases Legally Defined Vol
1 2nd Edn at p 105 Words  Phrases Judicially Defined Vol I Words Stroud s Judicial Dictionary Third Edn at p 176 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 appurtenant or other land than that the land appurtenant means not a land contiguous 899 to some other land but the very land which is a part of the same plot or area which contains the building or dwelling house
This also seems to be the avowed object of section 49
911 G H The scheme of the Act seems to be that if there is a constructed building with a dwelling unit the structure thereon cannot be treated as open land for the purpose of declaring it as an excess land beyond the ceiling limit
Similarly the land kept open under the municipal regulations upto 500 sq metres and an additional 500 sq metres appurtenant to the land would not be available for being declared as excess land beyond the ceiling limit
912 G H The High Court was absolutely wrong in importing the concept of contiguity on the assumption that section 49 was attracted only if the person concerned held a distinct parcel of land which was vacant land
The argument that once a plot contains a building the whole of the plot would be exempt from the ceiling area cannot be countenanced on a plain and simple interpretation of section 2 q ii read with section 49
Section 49 would be attracted regardless of whether the landholder owned a distinct part of land on which there is no construction along with any other parcel of land where there is some construction
913 D F A combined reading of section 49 and section 2 q ii and iii would lead to the irresistible inference that in cases which fall within the third category mentioned above for determining the ceiling area the 1 total area of the land of a landholder is first to be determined and if the total area built or unbuilt falls below 2000 sq metres in category areas there would be no question of any excess land 2 where however there is a building and a dwelling unit then the area beneath the building and the dwelling unit would have to be excluded while computing the ceiling
Further if there are any bye laws requiring a portion of the land to be kept vacant the landholder would be allowed to set apart the said land to the maximum extent of 500 sq metres
Ho would also be allowed to retain an additional area of 500 sq metres for the beneficial use of the building so that he may enjoy the use of a little compound also for various purposes
912 B E After excluding these items if the land falls below the ceiling limit there would be no question of excess but if there is excess that is beyond the ceiling limit the same would have to be taken over by the Government
912 E 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 g 41 of tho Act
915 E F 900 Where a person has several plots some completely vacant and some partly built and partly vacant for computation of the ceiling area 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 section 41 and give the landholder the option as provided under section 6 to select the area which he desires to retain provided that does not exceed the ceiling limit
915 H 916 A C Ms Eastern Oxygen  Acetylene Ltd vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1981 MP 17 approved
State of Uttar Pradesh  Anr
vs L J Johnson  Anr
1979 All
LJ 1222 overruled