STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HUKUM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The facts, in brief, are these. The respondent No. 1, Sri Hukum Chand was issued a draft statement prepared under Section 8 of the Act and objections were filed by him against the same. The Competent Authority considered the said objections and passed his order dated 14-3-1978, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed by Sri Hukum Chand and the same was allowed by the appellate Court by its impugned judgment dated 20-12-1979, a true copy of which is Annexure 2. A certified copy of the said judgment is also on record. The appellate Court held that Hukum Chaad did not hold any excess land and, therefore, the ceiling proceedings against him were quashed. Feeling aggrieved, the State has now come up to the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and in opposition, the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has made his submis sions. It is clear from the affidavits which have been filed in the instant petition that both the parties are disputing on a major question of fact. In paragraphs No. 8 and 9 of the writ petition it is stated as follows- "8. That the deponent of the accompanying affidavit is advised to State that since the vacant plot of land was separate and distinct from the constructed area and there being no land adjacent or appurtenant to the constructed building, there was no question of any land being allowed as land appurtenant to the buildings. 9. That it may be mentioned here that the vacant land measuring 1917. 36 Sq. M. , is separate and distinct from the constructed area of 59. 96 Sq. M. and there is no vacant land appurtenant to the constructed area available on the spot. It may further be mentioned that the cons tructed area is a residential dwelling unit and as such the provisions of Section 4 (9) of the Act were applicable. " However, in the counter-affidavit, the aforesaid allegations made in the writ petition have been denied. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Chiranji Lal, who has sworn the counter-affidavit as pairokar of respondent No. 1, it is stated as follows:- "10. That the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that no part of the land was separate and distinct from the constructed area and the plots in disputed are adjacent to the cons tructed building and as such part of the land held by the dependent can be said to be surplus. 11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is stated that the vacant land measuring 1917. 36 Sq. metres is not separate and distinct from the constructed area of 59. 96 Sq. metres and it is vacant land appurtenant to the constructed area and as such the provisions of Section 4 (a) of the Act were not applicable. " In the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, the allega tions made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition have been reiterated. Neither the Competent Authority nor the appellate Court clearly gave any finding in respect of the said controversy. Accordingly, I allow this petition and hereby quash the judgment of the appellate Court and the competent authority dated 20-12-1979 and 14-3-1978, respectively. The case is sent back to the Competent Authority for a fresh determination of the excess vacant land held by respondent No. 1 after record ing a clear finding as to whether there are separate properties or there is only one property having buildings and vacant land therein. The Competent Authority shall expressly State whether Section 4 (9) of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case. However, in view of the fact that the interpretation of the said provisions, namely Section 4 (9) of the Act, is involved in the Special Leave Petition No. 2088 of 1979, pending in the Supreme Court, the Compe tent Authority shall decide the case after the decision of the Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. .