K.P.Singh - (1.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the above noted writ petition are these :- Notice under Section 8 (iii) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was served upon the opposite party no. 2 Shri J. N. Chaterji, resident of bungalow no. 18, Strachy Road, Allahabad showing 1774.16 sq. metres as surplus land. Shri Chaterji filed an objection. It appears that Shri Chaterji could not appear before the competent authority and, therefore, on 16-12-1985 the competent authority declared 1774.16 sq. metres as excess vacant land. On 17-12-1985 Shri Chaterji moved a restoration application before the competent authority. The restoration application was also dismissed on 15-1-1986 in the absence of Shri Chaterji. Aggrieved by the order of the competent authority dated 15-1-1986 Shri Chaterji preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge through his order dated 8-4-1987 contained in Annexure III attached with the writ petition. Against the judgment of the appellate court dated 8-4-1987 the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the case on merits in terms of the alleged compromise between the parties. It has been stressed before me that there was no compromise as mentioned in the impugned judgment and that the appellate court could not decide the claims of the parties on merits in an appeal against the order dismissing restoration application in default. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the appellate court has patently erred in applying the principles of law laid down in State of U. P v. L. J. Johnson, 1983 AWC 798. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the aforesaid case is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decision of the appellate court on merits to the effect that Shri Chaterji had no excess vacant land is patently erroneous. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party Shri Chaterji has replied that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the order passed by the appellate court was on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
(3.) SECOND submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party is to the effect that in view of the decision of this Court in State of U. P. v. Mrs. Rakesh Murthy, 1984 AWC 715 the contesting opposite party Shri Chaterji has no excess vacant land and the judgment of the appellate court is quite correct in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, it should not be interfered with. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the facts alleged in para 2 of the counter affidavit. It has been stressed that as there are three buildings on the premises numbered as 18, Strechy Road, Allahabad, the opposite party no. 2 Shri Chaterji cannot be said to have any excess vacant land if correct calculation contemplated by law is done with regard to three buildings situate on the aforesaid premises.;