GAYATRI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The facts, in brief, are these.

(2.) THE petitioner was issued a notice under Section 6 (2) of the said Act and a true copy of the same is annexure 1 to the petition. THE petitioner filed her objections against the said notice before the Competent Authority, Aligarh, a true copy whereof is annexure 2 to the petition. THE Competent Authority rejected the said objections by his order dated 10-8-81, a true copy whereof is annexure 3 to the petition. THEreafter the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 24-2-82, a true copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition. A certified copy of the said judgment has also been placed on the record. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) LASTLY, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in Aftab Ahmad v. State, 1979 AWC 644. In the Division Bench pronouncement it was emphasized that existence of Master Plan alone was not sufficient but that it should satisfy the statutory requirements underlying its preparation and enforcement.