Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and orders dated 26.10.1991 and 6.1.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority/VIIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, respondent No. 2 and XVIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, respondent No. 1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the surplus land before the Prescribed Authority, Meerut which was registered as P.A. Case No. 208 of 1988 on the ground that respondent No. 3 is the tenant of ahata with two rooms each measuring 12ft. 6" x 8 ft. 3", i.e., 103.1250 sq. ft. ; that the total area covered under the tenancy of respondent No. 3 is 206.25 sq. ft. ; that respondent No. 3 is entitled to retain only double of the covered area, i.e., area of the room viz., 412.50 sq. ft. only plus area of the two rooms viz., 206.25 sq. ft. and the remaining area out of the ahata in dispute is surplus land which is bona fide required by the petitioner for constructing a house. Respondent No. 3 contested the release application on the grounds that besides two rooms there is a hall. The roof of the hall has fallen down ; that he has constructed tin-shed in the open land appurtenant and has installed his machinery there. It was averred that the total constructed area under his tenancy is 240 sq. yards whereas the total area let out to him is 455 sq. yards and thus there is no surplus land.
(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 26.10.1991 rejected the release application of the petitioner holding that the tin-sheds shall be deemed to be permanent construction as they were put in 26 years ago. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.10.1991, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 393 of 1991 before the District Judge, Meerut which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6.1.1995 holding that under Section 21 (2) of the Act covered area had to be taken into consideration irrespective of the fact that the covered area was building or not and that tin-sheds were part of the covered area and there was no surplus land in the accommodation in dispute, hence the instant writ petition has been filed.;