TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Exemption Application Post Land Vesting: Court Clarifies Rules</h1> <h3>Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad Versus P.S. Rao</h3> The Court held that an application for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 can be maintained even after excess ... - Issues:1. Maintainability of an application for exemption under Section 20(l)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 after excess land has been declared and vested in the State.2. Interpretation of the term 'to hold' in the context of seeking exemption under Section 20(l)(a) or Section 20(l)(b) of the Act.Issue 1: Maintainability of Exemption Application Post Declaration and Vesting:The State contended that once excess land is declared and vested in the State under Section 10 of the Act, the declarant is not 'holding' the land anymore, thus rendering an application for exemption under Section 20(l)(b) not maintainable. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Act's scheme requires detailed computation based on individual case facts. The exact quantum of excess land cannot be known definitively until after statutory deductions and computations are made. Hence, the Court held that an application for exemption can be made only after the excess land is actually determined under Section 10. The Court highlighted that the purpose of seeking exemption would be frustrated if applications were only allowed before the excess is determined.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'To Hold' in Seeking Exemption:The State argued that once excess land vests in the State, the person does not 'hold' the land, making them ineligible to file an exemption application under Section 20. The Court analyzed the definition of 'to hold' under Section 2(1) and concluded that the definition applicable during computation and preliminary determination of excess land cannot be directly applied to Section 20(l)(a) or (b). The Court reasoned that applying the same definition would render Section 20 unworkable and defeat its purpose. Therefore, the Court held that the definition of 'to hold' in Section 2(1) cannot be applied in the context of Section 20(l)(a) or (b).The Court referenced previous decisions and stated that the application for exemption can be maintained even after an order of vesting of excess land under Section 10. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that Section 20 application is maintainable post the vesting order. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly without interference with the High Court's judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
