STATE OF U P Vs. BHAGWAT

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 -80. Since 'urban land' occurring in Sec. of these writ petitions raised a common question for consideration, these are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Sri. Bhagwat Respondent No. 1 in writ petition No. 2975 of 1980 gave a notice to the Competent Authority on 26 -5 -79 Under Sec. 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (briefly the Act) intimating that he intended to sell 4 -bigha area of plot No. 96 situated in village Bachola, Tehsil and District Meerut. The Competent Authority observed that the land of village Bahchola was ear -marked for agriculture, green -belt and extractive industries in the master -plan and, therefore, in view of Sec. 2(o) 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 Sec. 6(1) of the Act and proceedings Under Sec. 10(1) of the Act had not been completed. The authority, therefore, declined to accord permission for selling the land.

(3.) 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 Sec. 26 of the Act. The application Under Sec. 26 was not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal.