B. D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the District Judge, Meerut, under Sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act) dated September 10, 1981.
(2.) THE respondent no. 1 submitted statement before the Competent Authority as required under section 6(1) of the Act. A draft statement accompanied with notice was issued by the Competent Authority in accordance with section 8 (1) of the Act. THE respondent filed objection against the same contending that there is no surplus land with him. THE objection was repelled by the Competent Authority on March 28, 1980 with the finding that the land measuring 675 82 sq. metres is to be considered surplus with the said respondent. THE respondent preferred appeal against this order. THE appeal was allowed on September 10, 1981 as the learned District Judge was of the opinion that in view of section 2 (q) (ij of the Act there was no surplus land with the respondent. Aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal. The respondent no. 1 has not appeared despite notice. Dispute does not exist on the point that the land held by the respondent no. 1 is as under: 1. Land covered by building (House No. 218 Ishwari, Meerut). ... 25 83 sq. metres. 2. Land comprised in Khasra plot no. 2905 in Meerut...... 2149-82 metres.
(3.) THE ceiling limit in the urban agglomeration concerned is 1500 sq. metres. THE competent authority has taken the view that excluding 15 sq. metres, the balance out of the entire area, namely, 675 82 sq. metres is to be regarded as surplus held as such by the respondent within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. THE appellate court was of the opinion that entire area covered by the house is to be excluded in view of section 2 (q) (ii) and that section 4 (9) is not in question because there is no land appurtenant to the building and that the entire plot over which the building stands is covered up. It observed, however, that in view of section 2 (q) (i), the vacant land in this case is not to be taken as including 999 08 sq. metres because under the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 construction is not permissible thereon. In this manner on giving the benefit of 99909 sq. metres out of 2149-82 sq. metres which is the area of plot no. 2905 the conclusion arrived at is that there is no surplus-the ceiling limit itself being 1500 sq. metres. In State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1983 AWC 798 at page 803 the Supreme Court laid down that where the entire urban land is covered by building or dwelling house, as in the present case, such an area would completely fall outside the ambit of the Act and no question of computation would arise. Section 4(9) comes in picture, it was held, if there is a land on a part of which there is a building with a dwelling unit and an area (open land) which is appurtenant thereto is vacant. No such situation exists in this case the reason being that the entire piece of land where the dwelling unit numbered as House No. 218 is situate is covered and there is no area appurtenant to the same. The Competent Authority has erred in adding up, therefore, 25.83 sq. metres which is the area comprised in the building for the purpose of arriving at the surplus. Vacant land as defined in section 2(q)iii) excludes land occupied by building constructed before the appointed day.;