K.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition h as been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the District Judge, Dehra Dun, dated 9 -12 -1982.
(2.) ON the enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Respondent No. 1 Atul Mittal, his cousins and uncles filed separate statements under Section 6(1) of the Act disclosing their shares in the joint properties and claiming that they did not possess any excess vacant land. These returns gave rise to Ceiling Cases Nos. 31 to 38 of 1980. They were consolidated. The statements were in respect of several properties. As in the present writ petition the controversy is only with respect to Cooperative Industrial Estate, Dehra Dun, comprising of plots 18, 19, 31 and 32 having an area of 2938 square metres with a constructed building over an area of 84 square metres, the details of other properties are not required to be given. This property was owned by Sajda Nasin Mahanl Sri Indresh Charan Das of Darbar Sri Guru Ram Rai Saheb. Through registered perpetual lease deeds dated 27 -6 -1963 and 17 -1 -1964, the Cooperative Industrial Estate obtained the plots mentioned above. Subsequently, the Cooperative Industrial Estate, Dehra Dun, sub -leased the same to Respondent No. 1 Atul Mittal. The claim of the said Respondent was that he exclusively possessed the said property, and that his other cousins and members of his family had no concern with the same. The Competent Authority, on receipt of the statement under Section 6(1), issued a draft statement under Section 8(3). To this draft statement, several objections were filed. The Competent Authority by his judgment dated 29 -1 -1981 declared 778.76 square metres as excess vacant land in coming to this conclusion, he excluded the area of 84 square metres covered by building and 500 square metres as land appurtenant to it. Against the judgment of the Competent Authority, Respondent 1 filed an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 64 of 1981. The District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the competent Authority by holding that the property in question could not be taken to be covered by the Act inasmuch as it could net be said to be held by Respondent No. 1 within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. The argument of Respondent 1 was that he was neither the owner nor the tenant as he was the sub -tenant of the same. The District Judge held that as a subtenant is not covered by Section 2(1) of the Act, Respondent No 1 was not covered by Section 3 of the Act. On this finding, the District Judge allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied, the present writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P.
(3.) SECTION 2(1) defines "to hold". This definition has two parts. Part (i) applies to a person who owns vacant land, whereas part (ii) covers the case of a person possessing such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire purchase agreement, or partly in one of the said capacities. The Explanation to this Section is important, hence it is being reproduced below: Explanation: - -Where the same vacant land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity, then, for the purposes of this Act, such land shall be deemed to be held by both such persons.;