GOSSNER EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Statement under Section 6 of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was filed before the Appropriate Authority, by the petitioner before us. According to the statement, the petitioner was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It held an extent of 121.94 acres of urban land. But in view of Section 19(vii) of the Act, the chapter relating to ceiling was not applicable to the lands held by the petitioner society. After a preliminary enquiry by the authorized officer, a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. It was indicated therein that the petitioner held an extent of 4,76,848.66 sqr. meters of land in the town of Ranchi; that an extent of 122690.26 sqr. meters was occupied by buildings and other structures and that the Society held an extent of 3,54, 158.40 sqr. meters as being in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by the Act. The petitioner Society filed objections in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act. The main contention raised by the petitioner Society was that the chapter relating to ceiling on urban land was not applicable to it in view of the fact that in was a Cooperative Society engaged in religious and charitable activities without any profit motive. The Society wanted the question of its obligation arising under the Act to be considered as a preliminary issue. The Society filed CWJC No. 1515 of 1991 (R) before this Court, urging the contention that the lands held by it stood outside the purview of Chapter III of the Act. This Court, by order dated 5.8.1991, directed the original authority under the Act to decide the question as to the said claim to stand outside the Act raised by the petitioner Society as a preliminary issue, pursuant to that direction. The Deputy Commissioner, the authority under the Act, took up for consideration that question by order dated 30.11.1991, held that the petitioner Society was not eligible for the exemption in question and that the lands held by it did not stand outside Chapter III of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner Society filed CWJC No. 1052 of 1992 (R) before this Court. Though the writ petition was admitted on 27.3.1992, this Court did not stay the further proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under the Act but ordered that if the Deputy Commissioner meanwhile passed a final order on the statement filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act, the same will be subject to the result of the writ petition.

(2.) THE Authority thereupon took up the matter for consideration. It passed a final order on 19.8.1992, affirming the draft statement and holding that the petitioner Society was liable to surrender an extent of 3,54, 158.40 sqr. meters of land. We are a little surprised to find that the Society went on harping upon its claim that the lands held by the institution were outside the ceiling chapter, though the claim had been finally rejected at least as far as that appropriate was concerned. Practically no other tenable claim was raised on behalf of the Society other than the exemption claimed under Section 19 of the Act. The determination of the extent to be surrendered by the Society was challenged by the petitioner Society in an appeal under Section 12(4) of the Act. Before the Appellate Authority also, except harping upon its contention that Section 19 applied to it, the Society made no attempt to raise any other contention except the plea ultimately taken that it may be given one more opportunity to choose the lands it wants to retain and it was entitled to retain. The Appellate Authority found no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at that the lands were not liable to be exempted under Section 19 of the Act. The Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere. It appears that there was no argument on any other aspect and the appeal was dismissed giving the Society an opportunity to choose the lands it wanted to retain. This order of the Appellate Authority is appealable under Section 13 of the Act. But for reasons unknown, the petitioner Society did not choose to avail of that substantive remedy but has filed the second writ petition, CWJC No. 782 of 1999 (R) before this Court. Since the matters are connected and the question involved is practically the same, and the matters arise from the same proceeding and the question that arises for decision is the same, the writ petitions are being heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) IN support of its claim, the petitioner Society produced certain accounts and audit reports. It also relied on an order by a Deputy Commissioner showing that a complaint was made about violation of Municipal laws by the petitioner Society. The State pointed out that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner relied on by the petitioner Society was in a Miscellaneous Case which had nothing to do with the Urban Land Ceiling Act and in any event, the State of Bihar was not even a party to the same. The Deputy Commissioner, the original authority under the Act, on a consideration of the relevant aspects found that the petitioner Society has not laid any foundation for claiming exemption under Section 19(iv) or 19(v) of the Act. As regards the claim under Section 19(vii) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner held that the Society was not using the land for a non -profit and non - commercial purpose. Actually the arguments before the original authority turned on the nature of construction put up by the Society subsequent to the appointed day, which as far as the State of Bihar was concerned, was 1.4.1976. But the Deputy Commissioner found on the basis of the accounts and audit reports produced by the petitioner Society that the petitioner Society was not expending its income substantially for non -profit and non -commercial purposes or for public religious charitable purposes, but as a matter of fact, it had entered into a commercial venture. This view was upheld by the Appellate Authority in the second round when the final order of the original authority was challenged before him in the appeal under Section 12 of the Act.