ATIA MOHAMMADI BEGUM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these appeals by special leave are the judgment and order dated 12-11-1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 4018 of 1980 and 5174 of 1980 which were filed by the appellant and the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment dated 12-2-1980 of the District Judge, Aligarh in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 24 of 1979 (sic). The competent authority declared that the appellant had 19813.83 sq. mts. of vacant land in Aligarh in excess of the ceiling limit but the District Judge reduced the area of the excess land to 6738.23 sq. mts. Against the order of the District Judge, both sides filed writ petitions. The High Court dismissed appellant's writ petition and partly allowed the writ petition of the State Government. This has led to the filing of these appeals against the High Court's order made in these two writ petitions against the appellant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued for restoration of the District Judge's order whereby an area of 6738.23 sq. mts. was declared to be in excess of the ceiling limit as against 19813.83 sq. mts. declared by the competent authority. The High Court set aside the District Judge's order on the construction it made of Explanation (C) in Section 2(o) defining 'urban land' in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The definition of 'urban land' in Section 2(o) excludes from its ambit, land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Thereafter, the Explanation for the purpose of clause (o) defining 'urban land' and clause (q) defining 'vacant land' is given. Clause (A) of the Explanation defines 'agriculture'. There is no dispute that the vacant land of which exclusion is claimed by the appellant on the ground that it is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture is so used according to the definition of 'agriculture'. There is also no dispute that clause (B) of the Explanation is satisfied by the appellant since the land was entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture. The only dispute is with regard to clause (C) of the Explanation which reads as under:-

(3.) There is no dispute that the Act came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 17-2-1976 and there was no master plan for that area in Aligarh at that time. However, a master plan for Aligarh was made on 24-2-1980 wherein the land in dispute was shown. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant's land could not be treated as mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of Explanation (C) because it was shown in the master plan made on 24-2-1980. The correctness of this view has been challenged in these appeals.