Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned District Judge after looking at the map has observed that the three tanks are contiguous and, therefore, appurtenant land for 500 square metres for each tank cannot be allowed under Section 2(g)(i) of the Act. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no finding recorded by learned District Judge that each tank is not distinct and separate building and denial of appurtenant land to each tank only on the ground that they are contiguous is unjustified. Mr. Dubey for the respondent has, however, urged that all the three lanks must be considered as one building since they are contiguous.

6. Section 2(g)(i) provides :

"2(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) xx xx xx xx"

6-A. While dealing with the scope of the "appurtenant land", under the Act the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. L. J, Johnson, AIR 1983 SC 1303 at p. 1308 observed :

"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 excess land beyond and ceiling limit. Similarly, the land kept open under the municipal regulations (up to 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 in excess of the ceiling regardless of whether the land is entirely open or whether 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 then 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."

7. It is not in dispute that the building regulations are in force in the area in which the tanks are located. That is sufficient for entitlement of appurtenant land. It is not necessary to consider whether the tanks have been constructed in accordance with the building regulations. The entitlement of appurtenant land does not depend upon the conformity of the structure with building regulations. All that is required is that there should be building regulations in force in the area where the structure or building has been constructed. Petitioner, therefore, would be entitled to 500 square metres as appurtenant land in respect of each tank.