JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made by a Co-operative Housing Society against an order dated 12.12.1979 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. By the said order the said Competent Authority declared the sale of land at Premises No. 206A, Picnic Garden Road, Calcutta to the petitioner society by the vendors was declared to be null and void. The facts leading to the present application are narrated hereinafter. 2. The petitioner society has been constructing houses for its members at 13, Broad Street, Calcutta. The society intended to acquire other and further lands by way of purchase. The society found out some lands at premises Nos. 206 and 206A, Picnic Garden Road. On searches being made it was found that the said premises are not affected by any acquisition proceedings or by any order of requisition. In reply to the letter of the advocate of the petitioner Society, the Corporation of Calcutta intimated that premises No. 206 has been renumbered as 206-A, Picnic Garden Road and taxes are liable to be paid from 1958 onwards to the tune of Rs. 1,600/- with interest. It was ascertained by the petitioner society that the premises No. 206-A, Picnic Garden Road stands in the name of the Panchugopal Naskar of 115, Picnic Garden Road. The said facts also appear from the record of rights. On 15.12.1979 the petitioner society took out the certified copy of the Assessment Registrar of the Corporation of Calcutta wherefrom it appears that the said Panchugopal Naskar has been occupying a two storied building comprising of an area of 15 cottahs which comprised of a hut and tank under premises No. 115, Picnic Garden Road and some portion under Premises No. 206, Picnic Garden Road, Calcutta. The petitioner society entered into three several agreements for sale sometimes in 1978 with the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in respect of 1/4th share of each of the said respondent-vendors in the Premises No. 206-A, Picnic Garden Road. The share of each of the said vendors was 4 cottahs 10 chattaks. 3. The petitioner society entered into three several agreements for sale sometimes in 1978 with the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in respect of 1/4th share of each of the said respondent-vendors in the Premises No. 206-A, Picnic Garden Road. The share of each of the said vendors was 4 cottahs 10 chattaks. 3. The petitioner society and the vendor, the respondent No. 3 applied for permission under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to the Competent Authority on 1.12.1978 in respect of the aforesaid transfer in terms of the agreement for sale and till 15.5.1979. No communication was received from the Competent Authority as to the refusal to grant permission and thereafter the Deed of sale in respect of 4 cottahs 10 chattaks of land was executed and registered on 15.5.1979. Similarly in respect of the agreement for sale with vendor, the respondent No. 4 the petitioner society and the vendor, the respondent No. 4 applied for permission under Section 27 of the said Act on 1.12.1978 and till 5.3.1979 no communication was received from the Competent Authority as to the refusal to grant permission and on 6.3.1979 the Deed of Sale was executed and registered in respect of lands measuring 4 cottahs 10 chattah. The petitioner society and the vendor, the respondent No. 5 also applied for permission under section 27 of the said Act in respect of the sale/transfer as aforesaid but till 5.3.1979 no communication was received from the Competent Authority as on the refusal to grant permission and as such on 6.3.1979 the Deed of Sale was executed and registered in respect of 1/4th share of the said vendor, the respondent No. 5 of land measuring 4 cottahs 10 chattaks. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner society spent various sums for improvement of land, so purchased. On or about 29.11.1979 two of the vendors, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 received two several show cause notices under section 5(3) of the said Act requiring the said vendors to show cause why the said transfer to the petitioner society by the said vendors shall not be declared null and void. The said notices were forwarded to the petitions society by the vendors and the petitioner society by a letter dated 6.12.1978 asked for adjournment for giving reply to the said show cause notices. 5. The said notices were forwarded to the petitions society by the vendors and the petitioner society by a letter dated 6.12.1978 asked for adjournment for giving reply to the said show cause notices. 5. On or about 18.12.1979 the petitioner society received two several orders dated 12.12.1979 addressed to the respondent Nos. 4 to 5 declaring that the aforesaid transfers by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are null and void under the: provision of section 5(3) of the said Act. The petitioner society has challenged the aforesaid notices in this proceeding. 6. Mr. Mihir Lal Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that lands in question do not fall within the meaning of vacant land as envisaged under the said Act since there was already a hut and tank on the land as will be evident from the Corporation records. Further the land belonging to the respective owner and transferred to the petitioner society only measured 4 cottahs 10 chattaks which do not come with the mischief of vacant land. It has further been submitted that the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to declare the aforesaid transfer null and void when the authority did not refuse to give transfer under section 27(3) of the said Act and the refusal was not communicated to the concerned vendors within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the application for permission made in the prescribed form under section 27(1) of the said Act. 7. Mr. Mihir Lal Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singhiji vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 234 , where the Supreme Court held that the entire Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is valid, save and except section 27(1) in so far as it imposes a restriction on transfer of any urban or urbanisable of land with a building or of a portion of such building, which is within the ceiling area. 8. No one has appeared to oppose this application nor any affidavit has been filed by the concerned respondents. 9. The facts as stated in the petition remain uncontroverted. From the assessment records of the Corporation of Calcutta, it appears that there was already a hut and tank on the land in question. 8. No one has appeared to oppose this application nor any affidavit has been filed by the concerned respondents. 9. The facts as stated in the petition remain uncontroverted. From the assessment records of the Corporation of Calcutta, it appears that there was already a hut and tank on the land in question. Further, each of the vendors has sold his or her 1/4th share measuring 4 cottahs 10 chattaks in the land with hut and tank thereon and as such, such transfer by the said vendor do will not come within the mischief of the said Act. The vendors do not hold or own any vacant land exceeding the ceiling. There has been no transfer of vacant land in this case nor any vacant land in excess of ceiling limit and as such the transfer made cannot be said to be in contravention of section 5(3) of the said Act. Moreover under section 27 of the said Act, the vendors and the vendee applied for permission under section 27 of the said Act for transfer of the said land. Under section 27(4) where within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of an application under section 27, the Competent Authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the competent authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. It is not disputed that three several applications for permission under section 27 were made on 1.12.1979. In one case the conveyance was registered after expiry of 96 days and in other two cases, after expiry of 163 days. The competent authority did not refuse to grant the said permission applied for and as such in view of the provisions of section 27(4) of the said Act, the Competent Authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission applied for. In that view of the matter the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction or authority to pass any order under section 5(3) of the Act holding any of the said transfers to be null and void under the provision of section 5(3) of the said Act. In the result, this application succeeds. Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders dated 12.12.1979 passed by the Competent Authority are set aside and quashed. Let appropriate writs be issued. There will, however, be no order as to costs.