STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BHAGWAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State of U.P. has prayed for quashing two judgments of the learned District Judge, Meerut dated 14 -1 -1980. Since both these writ petitions raise a common question for consideration, these are being disposed off by a common judgment. Sri Bhagwat respondent No. 1 in writ petition No. 2975 of 1980 gave a notice to the competent authority on 26 -5 -1979 under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (briefly the Act) intimating that he intended to sell 4 -bigha of plot No. 96 situated in village Bachola. Tehsil and District Meerut. The competent authority observed that the land of village Bachola was ear -marked for agriculture, green -belt and extractive industries in the master -plan and, therefore, in view of Section 2(a) Explanation (c), the land proposed to be sold could not be taken as land which was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. It also observed that the applicant had not filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Act and proceedings under Section 10(1) of the Act had not been completed. The authority, therefore, declined to accord permission for selling the land.

(2.) SRI Bhagwat filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge Meerut. The Learned District Judge observed that the land in question was entered in the revenue records as agricultural land and was being actually used for agriculture. In the master -plan, the land of the village had been indicated for the purposes of Agriculture, green belt and extractive industries. There was no division in the master -plan indicating that the plot in question was meant for extractive industries. He also observed that the land in question could not be treated as 'vacant land' for the purpose of the Act because it was land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. The learned District Judge therefore, observed that the land did not come within the purview of the Act and there was no need to move an application under Section 26 of the Act. The application under Section 26 was not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE State has not felt satisfied by the proposition of law laid down by the learned District Judge in the two appeals and has, therefore, filed these writ petitions.