K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Tribunal at Allahabad. appointed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 33 of the Act partly and reduced the surplus area of the land of the petitioner from 38075-05 sq. metres of land to 29443-15 sq. metres.
(2.) IT appears that under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, a draft statement was served upon the petitioner proposing to acquire 29575.05 sq. metres of land. The Competent Authority allowed 1500 sq. metres as vacant land and declared rest of it to be the surplus. In the appeal, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption of certain more aces. Hence, it allowed the appeal partly. In the writ petition preferred against the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner has taken a number of points. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that the Tribunal committed an error in treating even agricultural land as urban and in including the same also while computing the surplus area with him. The submission made is untenable. The petitioner admittedly is residing in the area covered by the Master Plan prepared for Allahabad. In the Master Plan use of the land given is not agricultural. Accordingly, the land of the petitioner which might have even been agricultural before the enforcement of the Act, would not be treated as agricultural. Section 2 (C) has defined 'urban land'. Laying emphasis on Section 2 (o) (ii), the learned counsel urged that as the land which is clearly used for the purpose of agriculture has been included, the Tribunal committed an error in including it. Clause (C) of the aforesaid definition which is material for our purposes is as under :- "(C) notwithstanding any thing contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture."
(3.) THIS would show that if the land has been specified in the Master Plan for the purpose other than agriculture, in that event it would be treated as such. Next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was as the Master Plan prepared in the instant case did not take into account the necessary circumstances, was illegal and its correctness could be challenged in the proceedings under the present Act.;