STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH COLLECTOR, DEHRADUN Vs. HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI S/O SRI JAGNAIN JOSHI R/O VILLAGE DHAURANKHAS, PARGANA PARWADOON, DISTRICT DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) BY means this writ petition, the pe­titioner-State of Uttarakhand has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure No.7) passed by District Judge, Dehradun in U.L.C. Misc. Case No.337/07, whereby the delay condonation appli­cation of the respondent was allowed and delay in filing the appeal was condoned. It is further prayed to quash the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in U.L.C. Appeal No. 188 of 2008, whereby the learned Dis­trict Judge allowed the appeal of the re­spondent and set aside the order of the competent authority.

(3.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this peti­tion, are that the respondeni filed state­ment of his properties under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula­tion) Act 1976 (for short, the Act) before the Competent Authority, who after con­ducting survey issued show cause notice to the respondent as to why 1331.06 sq.mt. land possessed by him be not de­clared surplus vacant land. The respond­ent filed objections. After considering the objections, the competent authority de­clared 1331.06 sq.mt. land as surplus vide order dated 20.1.1987. The petitioner al­leged that the possession was taken over pursuant to the notice. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before District Judge, Dehradun, who after hear­ing learned counsel for the parties and fol­lowing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Smt. A.M. Begum v. State of U.P." reported in 1993 Volume II S.V.L.R. (C) Page 44, allowed the appeal and held that the respondent is not pos­sessed of any excess vacant land. While deciding the appeal, the learned District Judge also placed reliance on the judge­ment of Apex Court in the case of "Un­ion of India etc. v. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary and other etc." reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1415 in which it was held that the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, provide imposition of ceiling on vacant land and not on agricultural land. Here in the present case, the land in question was agricultural as per the report available on the file of the Competent Authority and it could not have been declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceil­ing and Regulation) Act, 1976.