K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the State of U. P. against the judgment of Shri K. C. Sharma, District Judge, Dehradun, dated 2-7-79 in Urban Land Ceiling Appeal No. 89 of 1979 Shri Gurmeet Singh Pal versus State of U.P. and others whereby it has been held that the opposite party no. 1 in the present writ petition did not possess any excess vacant land.
(2.) IT has not been disputed before me that the opposite party no. 1 owned and possessed an open piece of land measuring 2409 sq. metres. A draft statement under Section 8 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was served upon the opposite party no. 1 intimating that 409 sq. metres excess land was possessed by him and requiring him to file any objection thereto. The opposite party no. 1 contested the draft statement on the ground that under the Dehradun Nagar Palika Byelaws, no construction could be made upon 1444 sq. metres land, hence he was not possessed of any excess land. Secondly, it was contended that a Leechi grove existed over the disputed land, hence it was exempted from the definition of "land" under the above-mentioned Act.
(3.) THE competent authority through its order dated 30-4-1979 (Annexure I attached with the writ petition) repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the opposite party and confirmed the draft statement served upon the oppsite party no. 1 in the present writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the competent authority the opposite party no. 1 had preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge through his impugned judgment dated 2-7-1979. Now the State of U.P. has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the State has contended before me that since the disputed land was an open piece of land, the opposite party no. 1 can hold maximum vacant land under the provisions of the Act to the extent of 2000 sq. meters only. According to him the appellate authority has patently erred in taking shelter behind the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act. He has further contended that in the circumstances of the present case the provisions of Section 2 (q) (i) of the Act would not be applicable in view of the decisions of this Court reported in State of U.P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1978 AWC 731.;