RAMNIKLAL RATILAL MEHTA Vs. Y A SATHAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings of declaration of surplus vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the following two pieces of land, viz. land Survey Nos. 248, 247 (Pt.), 375 situated at Mulund admeasuring 1,15,160 Sq. Mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "the Mulund land") and land Survey Nos. 186 (Pt.), 187 (Pt.) and 189 (Pt.) situated at Ghatkopar admeasuring 13,764 Sq. Mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "the Ghatkopar land").

(2.) Before the Competent Authority, it was the contention of the petitioner that the said lands at Mulund and Ghatkopar have no independent means of access from any public road or street and no construction is permissible on the said lands under the Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay and, therefore, the said lands are excluded from the definition of 'vacant land' by virtue of the provisions of sub-clause (1) of Clause (q) of section 2 of the said Act. It was also contended by the petitioner that there is unauthorised hutment upon the Ghatkopar land and, therefore, it is not a 'vacant land' as defined by section 2(q) of the Urban Ceiling Act. Both the contentions were rejected by the Competent Authority, who declared an area of 1,00,641.8 Sq. Mtrs. as excess vacant land. In Appeal, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority.

(3.) Shri Madan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there are no means of access from any public road or street in respect of the petitioner's lands at Mulund and Ghatkopar and as such, the construction of building is not permitted on the said lands and, therefore, the lands cannot be said to be 'vacant lands' within the meaning of section 2(q) of the said Act. Shri Madan submits that sub-clause (1) of section 2(q) excludes from the definition of 'vacant land' the 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, and as the construction of a building is not permissible under the relevant Development Control Rules of Greater Bombay, the lands of the petitioner cannot be said to be 'vacant lands'. According to the learned Counsel, the vacant land has to be determined with reference to the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 17th February, 1976. The Counsel, therefore, describes the impugned orders treating the petitioner's lands as 'vacant lands' on the assumption that access might be available in future as patently illegal. The Counsel brings to our notice the orders passed by the Municipal Corporation refusing building permission in respect of the Mulund land in support of his submissions. The Counsel also submits that there is unauthorised hutment on the Ghatkopar land and having regard to the fact that the said Ghatkopar land is declared as 'slum' under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the same cannot be regarded as 'vacant land'.