BRIJ MOHAN SURI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has come up on reference dated 28/11/1995 to this bench for considering the question of law raised in this case.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant who is the owner of vacant land in Kanpur Urban Agglomeration and disputes the computation of ceiling. Three plots of land, one bearing Plot No. 113/41, Swarup Nagar to the extent of 501.64 square metres on which he had built up dwelling unit over 246.48 square metres; Plot No. 123/430 to the extent of 2675.20 square metres situated in Fazalpur, Kanpur over which he had constructed a factory admeasuring 898.90 square metres; and a Plot No. 123/35 in a total extent of 3251.10 square metres on which he had construction over 1905.75 square metres of the land occupied by the factory belonging to the appellant. On a statement filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") , the Ceiling authority after notice to the appellant after filing statement by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act prepared draft statement under Section 8 and issued final statement under Section 9 declaring that the appellant is having urban excess vacant land to the extent of 2121.65 square metres. On appeal the appellate authority held that the appellant held 1603.25 square metres as surplus vacant land. As stated earlier when the decision of the appellate authority was questioned in the writ petition, the High Court upheld the appellate order. Thus this appeal byspecial leave.

(3.) Smt Sheil Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that under Section 2 (b) read with Section 2 (h) of the Act, read with Section 2 (g) , when the appellant had constructed factories in accordance with the master plan and the building regulations, entire area occupied by the factory as per the building regulations shall be excluded in computing the ceiling limit of the urban land held by the appellant. If that is excluded, indisputably there is no excess land held by the appellant. The view of the High court is wrong in law. Shri Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing for the State, contended that Section 2 (c) defines "ceiling limit" and as per Section 4 (l) (c) in relation to its application the Kanpur ceiling limit is 1500 square metres. Section 2 (0 read with Section 2 (q) defines "urban land" and "vacant land" respectively. Section 2 (q) excludes certain land. The land occupied by the factory is not one of the lands exempted under Section 2 (q). Consequentially, in computing the vacant land in the final statement under Section 2 (g) , the authorities are required to compute only that land which stands excluded from the purview of the Act. Therefore, appellant's excess vacant land would need to be surrendered.