S. VASUDEVA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

20Copy pinpoint20. I have made no reference to Section 26 or Section 27 of the Act, G while considering the question whether on the ground of "undue hardship" the holder of the excess vacant land can be granted exemption and then permis- sion to sell such excess land, because he is financially crippled or burdened with liabilities. In the case of Bhim Singhji v. Union of India (supra) this Court ~· held that Section 27(1) in so far as it imposes restriction on transfer of any urban or urbanisable land with a building or of a portion of such building which is within ceiling area, was invalid. The said sub-section (1) of Section 27

S. VASUDEVA v. STATE OFKARNATAKA[SINGH,J.] 757

was struck down being unconstitutional. Section 26 of the Act also imposes certain restrictions on transfer of vacant land even within ceiling limit. It can be urged that Section 26( 1) suffers from the same vice which was pointed out in respect of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of Act, in the aforesaid case of Bhim Singhji v. Union of India (supra) by this Court. But neither in the aforesaid case nor in this case this court was or is concerned with Section 26 and as such, according to me, it is not necessary to express any opinion in respect of Section 26 of the Act, while considering the issue involved in the present appeals.

- ORDER

21Copy pinpoint21. For the reasons given by us above, we are of view that the provisions of Section 20 [1] (b) of the Act do not permit the State Government to give exemption to the vacant in excess of the ceiling limit for the purposes of transferring the same.

22Copy pinpoint22. In view of our conclusion as above, it is not necessary to go into the further question, viz., if the State Government has such power, in which circumstances it can be exercised and whether financial hardship such as the indebtedness of the land-holder is sufficient to warrant such exemption or not and with respect to which date such indebtedness is ·ta be assessed and in what manner, and whether in the present case, the said aspects of the indebtedness were investigated or properly investigated or not. For this very reason, we also do not pr.opose to go into the other question regarding the ma/a jides on the part of the authorities while granting permission to the firm to sell the land to the builders in question.

23Copy pinpoint23. Since we have come to the conclusion that the State Government has no power to grant permission to sell the land under Section 20 [1] (b), the orders dated 6.3.87 and 18.4.87 granting exemption and permission to the firm for sale of the land are void ab initio having been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the sale-deed dated 30.9.1987 executed by the 2nd respondent- firm in favour of the 3rd respondent-builders is held invalid and inoperative, as :he respondent-firm had no legal right to transfer the land in favour of the builders. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The respondents - State of Karnataka, M/s. Narayanas- wamy & Sons and Mis. Reevajethu, Builders & Developers will pay the costs to the appellants in one set.

G.N. Appeals allowed.