PRATIMA PAUL Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of going through the Judgment prepared by my learned brother, A. K. Nandi, J, and I agree that for the reasons stated by him we must make the Rule absolute and quash the impugned Order passed by the Competent Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). But in view of the importance of the two questions involved herein, I have thought it fit to add a few words, my concurrence with the view of my Lord Nandi, J., notwithstanding.

(2.) The first question arises thus. What vests under the Act is Urban vacant land and the expressions 'Urban Land' as in Section 2(q) and the expression 'Vacant Land' as in Section 2(q) have been expressly defined not, "to include any land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture". The Explanation (B) to Section 2(a), however, goes to show that a land, notwithstanding its actual user mainly for agricultural purposes, "shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture". The reason behind this provision is patently obvious, the object being to forestall attempted exclusion of lands from the purview of the Act by putting the same to some sort of agricultural use in anticipation of the apprehended operation of the Act. As I had occasion to point out, speaking for a Division Bench of this Court, in Birajananda vs. Competent Authority (AIR 1988 Cal 8), referred to by Nandi, J., in order to warrant exclusion from the operation of the Act, the land must not only be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture at the commencement of the Act, it must also be recorded as such in the relevant land-records.

(3.) In the case at hard, it is not disputed that the lands in question have not only been recorded as agricultural in the relevant land-records, the same have also been used for the purpose of agriculture till 1975. From 1979, the lands have not been used for the purpose of agriculture or, for the matter of that, for any purpose and the case of the petitioners is that they could not do so because of want of fund and want of helping hand as a result of the last male-holder having died m indigent circumstances and without any adult male member to look after the lands. The respondents have held that the lands, as a result of such non-user, have become vacant land for the purpose of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has already relied on Explanation (ii) to Section 6 which provides that - "where any land, not being vacant land .. has become vacant land by any reason whatsoever". the Act shall commerce to operate in respect of such land from "the data on which such land becomes vacant land".