- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-11-1995, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Moradabad acting as Appellate Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, for short the Act. It appears that the competent authority vide its order dated 7-10-1985 declared an area measuring 1723. 24 Square Metres as excess vacant Land. The respon dent No. 1 filed an appeal challenging the validity of the order passed by the Com petent Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Competent authority, and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 30-11-1995. Thus, as stated above, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 30-11-1995, passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has referred to and relied upon the decision of Apex Court of the country in the case of Atya Mohammadi Begum v. State of U. P. and others (AIR 1993 SC 2465 ). The Appellate Authority held that the facts of the present case were exactly similar to the facts of the case of Smt. Atiya Mohammadi Begum (supra) and allowed the appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the interpretation of Section 2 (b) of the Act given by the Appel late Authority is apparently erroneous and illegal. He has referred to and relied upon the provision of Section 6 of the Act and submitted that the case should have been decided in the light of the provisions of Section 2 (O) (C) and Explanation (ii) to Section 6 (1) of the Act, which has not been taken into account, and order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been set aside wholly arbitrarily. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the facts of the case of Smt, Atiya Mohammadi Begum (Supra) were exactly similar to the facts of the present case, but he has urged that the Second Additional District Judge has com mitted an error in holding that the land in dispute was the agricultural land and was out of the purview of the Act.;