- (1.) B. C. Srivastava, J. In the revised list none appears for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel and perused the materials on record. The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the judgment and order dated 21-9-1983, Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 1. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that firm Akash Deep Pvt. Ltd. submitted a return under Section 6 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After necessary enquiries notices were issued. Objections were filed on 17-3-1977 by P. N. Jasuria on behalf of the said firm. After considering the objec tions the competent authority determined 3449 square metres vacant land. Notice was directed to be issued for publication in the gazette as provided under Section 10 (1) of the Act. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is the order dated 24-6-1977 of the competent authority. An other applica tion was moved by P. N. Jasuria on 25-10-1982 raising certain objections to the aforesaid determination of surplus vacant land. After considering the objections and the provisions of the Act and rules the competent authority modified its earlier order and determined 325. 63 square metres surplus land. Still feeling aggrieved, an appeal 'was filed by M/s. Akasheep Pvt. Ltd. which was allowed by the appellate authority on 21-9-1983 vide An nexure 4 to the writ petition. It declared that there is no surplus land with the ap pellants. These two orders contained in Annexures 3 and 4 were assailed by the learned Standing counsel in this writ peti tion, though the prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the order of the appellate authority contained in Annexure 4.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the competent authority as well as appellate authority committed manifest error of law in inter preting Section 2 (g) (i) of the Act of 1976. THE order of the appellate authority was also vehemently assailed by the learned Standing Counsel. The judgment of the competent authority shows that bifurcation was made in respect of hotel and constructions which are the part of hotel premises and there was a boundary wall as well as a room constructed for agricultural pur poses. The competent authority granted concession of 500 square metres for the constructions in the first category and similar concession for the second category at the rate of 500 square metres. In this way surplus land was reduced considerably and was ultimately determined to be 325. 63 square metres. The appellate authority made certain observations in its short judgment and ultimately declared that there was no surplus land in as much as U. P. Regulation of Building Operation Directions, 1960 issued under Act No. 34 of 1958 provides maximum covered area for any building site in urban areas to be 25% covered area in respect of the premises planned for the business or com mercial undertakings. The appellate authority in view of this further reduced 25% land in this way calculated that there was no surplus land.;