MANGALSEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition we have been asked to consider the grant of the following prayers:

(3.) The facts, in brief, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are that the Petitioner was a recorded tenure holder in Village Harunagala of Plots No. 535, 559, 296 and 534. Out of the said holding the vacant land of the Petitioner was 8837.39 Sq. Meter. The statement under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), was filed by the Petitioner before the competent authority having jurisdiction specifying therein the location, extent, value and other particulars as prescribed, of all the vacant land. Pursuant to filing of the aforesaid statement under Section Section 6 (1) of the Principal Act, an enquiry is said to have been made after survey etc. and a draft statement was prepared by the competent authority under Section 8(1) of the Principal Act and a notice to that effect was served on 17.11.1981 in which 7337.39 sq.mtrs. Of land was determined to be in excess to the ceiling limit as prescribed under the Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice the Petitioner filed his objection along with an application under Section 20 of the Act. The objection of the Petitioner was considered and vide the impugned order dated 18.5.1982 the draft statement filed under Section 8(1) of the Principal Act was considered and 7337.39 sq. mtrs. of vacant land was declared to be in excess of the ceiling limit and a notice under Section 9 was issued for preparation of final statement and thereafter the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was directed to be issued. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.