P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) ISSUE rule. ( 2 ) THE petitioner having purchased some land from one David Pinto wanted to sell 5 cents thereof to one Mangesh Pai and, therefore, gave notice of such intention to transfer land to the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the Act) under S. 26 of the Act. The competent authority who received that notice on 25-11-1988 passed an order on 11-4-1989 as follows : a plain reading of the above order makes it clear that the competent authority had stated that it would consider acquiring the land proposed to be sold by the petitioner in favour of the prospective vendee Mangesh Pai, only in the event the said authority not being able to find other vacant land for being acquired. It further states that subject to such a condition, the application made by the petitioner under S. 26 of the Act was accepted. ( 3 ) RELEVANT portions of S. 26 reads :"26. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent authority. (2) Where a notice given under sub-section (1) is for the transfer of the land by way of sale, the competent authority shall have the first option to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government at a price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or of any other corresponding law for the time being in force and if such option is not exercised within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice, it shall be presumed that the competent authority has no intention to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like: provided that where the competent authority exercises within the period aforesaid the option to purchase such land the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price thereof shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. "a perusal of the said provision indicates that transfer of vacant land to which the Act applies can be done only after issuing a notice of such intended transfer to the competent authority and upon issuance of such a notice the competent authority may exercise its preemptive option to purchase the land subject to payment of price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and subject to such option being exercised within 60 days from the date of receipt of such notice. The section also stipulates that, in case option is not exercised within that period, it may be presumed that the competent authority was not desirous of purchasing the land on behalf of the State Government and permission to transfer the land to a vendee of the vendor's choice can be presumed. The section makes it further clear that, in case the authority exercises its option to purchase the land, execution of necessary sale deed shall be completed and payment of the purchase price to the vendor shall be made within a period of 3 months from the date such option is exercised. ( 4 ) SECTION 26 indicates a two tier procedure, i. e. , (i) if the competent authority was desirous of acquiring the land for the transfer of which notice is given under S. 26 of the Act, it had to exercise its option to acquire the land within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice under S. 26 of the Act and (ii) completion of the execution of the sale deed and payment of the sale price had to be made within the period of 3 months from the date of exercising its option. ( 5 ) IN this case the authority appears to have exercised some kind of conditional option in that it had reserved liberty to acquire the land and says it will do so only if no other vacant land is available and, thereafter, proceeds to accept the petitioner's application which means that the application seeking permission to sell or transferring the land to somebody else was accepted. In other words, the authority appears to have expressed almost no objection for transferring the land by the petitioner to the proposed vendee Mangesh Pai. In other words, the authority appears to have expressed almost no objection for transferring the land by the petitioner to the proposed vendee Mangesh Pai. But, the authority being obliged to take a clear cut stand regarding its willingness to purchase the land in question and to express its desire within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice under S. 26 (l) of the Act, it could not have expressed a conditional volition to acquire land as it now appears to have done. ( 6 ) LAW does not recognise such hesitant exercise of power to acquire land hedged in by other factors. The authority has to say either 'yes' or 'no' within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice under S. 26 (l) and, if the authority does not say either, the citizen must be at liberty to go his own way without any fetter on his power to transfer. The scheme of the law is to permit free transfer of land subject only a limited constraint imposed under S. 26 (2) and the proviso thereto, in that the authority is empowered to take a decision in regard to acquiring the land within 60 days from the date of the application and, in case it chooses to acquire land, has to conclude and complete the transaction by paying the purchase price within 3 months from the date of exercising such option to acquire land. It is, therefore, evident that the action of the authority under S. 26 involves certain expediency and if the authority failed to meet the statutory dead line, the citizen would be free to dispose of land in any manner he chooses. ( 7 ) IN this case, the authority has passed a very curious order and that too long after the expiry of stipulated period of 60 days which is neither here nor there. The authority appears not only to have granted permission to transfer the land and at the same time holds out the bleak prospect of undoing or nullifying the transaction by keeping open its option to take away the petitioner's land in case other vacant land was not available. The authority appears not only to have granted permission to transfer the land and at the same time holds out the bleak prospect of undoing or nullifying the transaction by keeping open its option to take away the petitioner's land in case other vacant land was not available. The purport of the order is that even if several years had elapsed after the land was sold to the aforesaid Mangesh Pai by the petitioner, the competent authority would be still at liberty to take it away on the convenient pretext that "other land was not available". Regard being had to the provisions of S. 26 which are plain enough, it becomes clear that the authority is not a repository of any residuary power to take away right to hold property once it is transferred to others following a valid sale and cannot undo the transaction long after its failure to exercise option for acquiring land under S. 26 of the Act. Without more, the order under Annexure D passed by the competent authority which suffers from the foregoing deficiencies is clearly unsustainable in law. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader however made a valiant effort to sustain the order at Annexure D. He submits that the vendor of the petitioner, viz. , David Pinto, having found to hold excess land under the Act, could not have sold the land to the petitioner without taking necessary permission and that the transaction between Pinto and the petitioner was clearly within the mischief of S. 5 (3) of the Act. This controversy is not before the Court. If and when the authority under the Act takes exception to the transaction between Pinto and the petitioner, it could then surely take action in that behalf. But on the off chance that the transaction between the petitioner and Mangesh Pai being pronounced illegal later cannot persuade the Court to uphold the order impugned herein since the order passed by the authority is totally without jurisdiction. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure D is quashed. The petitioner is deemed to have been granted necessary permission to transfer his land by sale thereof as desired. Rule made absolute. No costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .