M. Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) THE Prescribed Authority declared 8261.10 Sq. metre as surplus area. It would appear that a return was filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Urban Ceiling Act. THEreafter a notice was given as required under section 8 (3) of the Urban Ceiling Act laying down the area treated as surplus after allowing 1500 Sq. metres. THE notice was sent per registered post. THE petitioners did not appear to contest. THE Ceiling Authority thereafter proceeded ex-parte and determined the surplus area. This judgment was passed much earlier. In fact the petitioners kept sleeping. THE appeal was filed much later. It was rejected on September 17, 1983. THEreafter this writ has been filed. THE appellate court also observed that even the possession of the surplus land was obtained on 5-10-82 much before filing of the appeal. It is noteworthy that the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was of 11-1-1980.
(2.) IT is urged that the land is an agricultural land which is not covered under the Urban Ceiling Act. Section 2 (o) defines 'Urban land' and clause (i) lays down that it includes any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan. The rider is that it does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purposes of agriculture. There are explanation for the purpose of this clause and clause (q) Explanation (C) is very important and I may quote it : (c) "Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, law 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." A counter affidavit has br.cn given in which it has been categorically stated that the plot is not agricultural and has been shown in the master plan for the purpose of renovation of Meerut City and is not agricultural land. It was further stated that master plan was sanctioned on 12-4-1978. It is urged that on the date Ceiling Act became enforceable master plan was not in force. In this connection Section 6 defines 'commencement of this Act'. Clause (i) provides commencement from the date on which the Act came into force in any State. Clause (ii) is very important and I may quote it: "Where any land, not being vacant land, situated in a State in which this Act is in force has become vacant land by any reason whatsoever the date on which such land become vacant land." On a plain reading of clause (ii) it is clear that even if a land was not vacant land on the date of the enforcement of the Act but become vacant land on any subsequent date the commencement of the Act will be deemed from that date. It is also noteworthy that the clause says that the land has become vacant land by any reason whatsoever. Once under the master plan it was declared as non agricultural then from the date the master plan became final the land would be a vacant land within urban agglomeration as to be covered under Ceiling Act. That being the position and the case having been decided in 1980 the land alleged to be agricultural was not agricultural but otherwise as per master plan. The petitioner's counsel then challenged the master plan itself maintaining that the provision would hit the Constitution. Section II of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 lays down the procedure for submission of the plan to the State for approval and then there are further provisions. Once the plan has become approved it has become final. No individual notice is required under the Act. It was urged that in such a case the provision would be ultravires. I am unable to agree with such submission. Personal notice has been dispensed with in so many Acts and Notifications has been sufficient, of course allowing individuals if they feel aggrieved, to file objection if so desire. Such provision is Reserved...............? Act and in so many other Acts the Court has also to bear in mind that in a developing and advancing countries as ours developed and planned constructions and development according to plan in the town is a must, and all such legislations are in public interest. Towns are to grow and extend and extend in a planned manner and master plans are vital for that in the interest of the Society and cannot be levelled as bad. If the petitioner kept sleeping and did not challenge the master plan at proper stage he has no legs to stand here. I may also observe that the petitioner did not appear before the Prescribed Authority to press this plea; even before the appellate court this plea was not raised and this Court will not...............? indulgence to permit such plea which is being raised simply by way of dilatory tactis. I do not find any force in this writ petition and it is summarily rejected. Petition dismissed.;