Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LALA JEETMAL KAPOOR TRUST versus STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Decided
8 December 1992
Judges listed
L.M. SHARMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 424 · 1992 INSC 332

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

MOHAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 12.11.1984 passed by ·the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7160 of 1980.

pp. 425–426, margin G

The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

p. 426, margin A

The appellant-Trust was started in the year 1917 for the benefit of poor Khattrey girls. Kanpur Southern City Extension Scheme No. II was notified on 17.1.1921. Under the said Notification the land belonging to the Trust was sought to be acquired~ On 25th of April, 1928 a trust deed was executed whereby Jeet MaLKapoor, the founder of that Trust, dedicated his properties for the benefit of the public.

p. 426, margin A

Devi Das. Kapoor the Manager of the said Trust, filed a statement under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the effect that the Trust was the owner of plot No. 64, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. On inspection, the Assistant Director found that the Trust owned 2071.10 sq. meters in plot No. 64 which was a vacant land. As per the master plan it was sought to be acquired for residential purposes. On the basis of this inspection a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued proposing to acquire 1071.10 sq. meters of vacant land.

p. 426, margin C

To the above proposal, objections were filed on behalf of that Trust that the lay-out as proposed had been sanctioned by the controlling authority. Provisions for construction of road and park meant for general public use had also been provided. To this effect, an agi-eement dated 12.4.75 was entered into between Kanpur Development Authority and the Trust, on which orders had come to be passed on 13.10.77. Besides, an application under Section 20 of the Act for exemption has also been made to the Government.

p. 426, margin D

·These objections were cop.sidered by the competent authority by an order dated 21.9.78. The objections were overruled and the direction was given to prepare a final statement under Section 9 of the Act.

p. 426, margin F

Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge of Kanpur who allowed the appeal in part holding that the competent authority should have excluded the area for roads and the park in view of sub-clause (i) of clause (q) of Section 2 of the Act. Accordingly he held that the surplus land in the hands of the appellant was only 131.10 sq. meters. Challenging the correctness of this order a writ petition was preferred which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 12.11.84. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 426–427, margin G

Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that as on today the application for exemption under Section 20 is pending before the Govern· ment, should that be decided in his favour there would be no necessity tQ go into the other questions. Even otherwise, the interpretation of Section 2( q)(i) by the High Court is not correct. That calls for interference by this Court.

p. 427, margin A

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the High Court was right in its interpretati~n. Section 2( q)(i) talks of a building not being permissible; in other word§, where no construction at all can be made, That is not the case here. No doubt, the application of the appellant. for exemption is pending but that does not mean that the High Court is barred from going into the merits.

p. 427, margin C

On a careful consideration of the submissions it appears to us that the interest of justice would be met by issuing the following directions:

p. 427, margin D

1. It is open to the appellant to pursue his application for exemption under Section 20 llf the Act.

p. 427, margin E

2. Should the appellant succeed in getting the exemption, no further questions arises.

p. 427, margin E

3. In the event of the appellant being denied the benefit of exemption it would be open to him to challenge the order. While so challenging, the appellant will be at liberty to canvass the correctness of the' finding of the High Court with regard to interpretation of Section 2(q)(i) of the Act.

p. 427, margin F

Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. N.P.V. Appeal Disposed of.

p. 427, margin G