R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 30.4.1983 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh acting as Appellate Authority Under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 made an application, for permission to mortgage a portion of his land, before the competent authority. The competent authority vide its order dated 17.1.1983 rejected the application filed by the said respondent holding that the respondent was holding land beyond the ceiling limit and notice under Section 6(2) of the Act was already issued to him. Therefore, he can not be allowed to give notice under Section 26 or file an application under Section 27. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the competent authority respondent No. 1 filed an appeal. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 13.4.1993 with the observation that respondent No. 1 wanted to transfer only 73.57 sq. metres which was much below the exemption limit of 2000 Sq. Metre. Even if some land out of the land held by respondent No. 1 is declared as excess vacant land, same will be adjusted in and taken from his remaining land. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently urged that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is manifestly erroneous and illegal inasmuch as, Section 5(3) of the Act places absolute bar on the transfers of land or part thereof by a person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit, by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise unless he furnishes a statement under Section 6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub -section 1 of Section 10 and any such transfer made in contravention of said provision is void.
(3.) COMPETENT Authority recorded clear and categorical finding on the basis of surveyor's office report that the vacant land held by the respondent No. 1 was more than his ceiling limit. Appellate Authority did not reverse the said finding, but reversed the order passed by the competent authority. Actually the application filed by the respondent No. 1 was legally not maintainable. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in State of U.P. v. Phillips Mehrotra, 1980 AWC 473 (D.B.). The judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority is therefore liable to be quashed. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 30.4.1983 is quashed. No order as to costs.;