Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It raises an interesting point regarding the interpretation of Section 19(1)(iv) of the said Act. The said provision is as follows: - - Section 19. Chapter not to apply to certain lands - - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub -section (2), nothing in this chapter shall apply to any vacant land held by - - (iv) Any public charitable or religious trust (including wakf) and required and used for any public charitable or religious purposes. Provided that the exemption under this clause shall apply only so long as such land continues to be required and used for such purpose by such trust. The petitioner before me is the State. The respondent No. 1 Mohammad Obaidur Rahman Khan filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Act. The return was filed by respondent No. 1 claiming to be the Mutwalli of a wakf. It was filed in the status of an association.
(2.) THE competent authority prepared a draft statement Under Section 8(1) of the Act on the basis of the said statement filed under Section 6(8) of the Act. A copy of the said draft statement was served upon the respondent No. 1, who filed his objections under Section 8(3) of the Act. The Competent Authority thereafter decided the said objections by his order dated 26.3.1979. The objections were rejected. A true copy of the said order dated 26. 3. 1979 is annexure 1 to the petition. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the respondent No. 1. The appeal was allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21.1.80, a true copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on record. The appellate court held that the wakf in question was entitled to the exemption under Section 19(1)(iv) of the Act and, therefore, there was no question of any vacant land being held by it in excess of the ceiling area.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the State has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri S.D. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, and in opposition, Sri N.K. Kazmi and Sri G.N. Varma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, have made their submissions.;