CHAND JAIN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY URBAN CEILING SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25-1l-82, passed by the Competent Authority and the order dated 22-2-86, passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur in proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) The petitioners filed a statement under S. 6(1) of the Act. On 11-3-1977 a draft statement was served upon the petitioners. The petitioners filed objection against the said draft statement. Thereafter, another amended draft statement was served on the petitioners on 24-2-1978, showing 5980 square metres as excess vacant land with petitioner No. 1 and 1990 square metres as excess vacant land with petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 each. The petitioners, further filed additional objection. On these three objections three cases were registered.

(3.) The objection of the petitioners was common. Their case was that plots Nos. 232 and 233 were groves and in a smaller portion of these plots there was a building. The groves contained fruit bearing trees and, therefore, such grove land was exempt from the operation of the Act. It was not covered by the definition of 'vacant land' as defined under S. 2(q) of the Act and shall not be treated as 'urban land' under S. 2(o) of the Act. The petitioners filed Khasras regarding these plots for the years 1223F, 1296F, 1383F, 1382F, 1384F and 1389F. In the case, report of the Junior Engineer of Ceiling Department and the report of Naib Tahsildar, Urban Ceiling, was also submitted regarding the nature of the land. On 23-6-82 plots were also surveyed by a Surveyor of the Department indicating the number of trees standing on these plots and the nature of the land. The Competent Authority, the respondent No. l, rejected the objection of the petitioners by order dated 25-11-82 declaring 14571.15 sq. m. as excess vacant land with the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeals against the said decision and these appeals were partly allowed and the area of excess vacant land was reduced to 10525.25 sq. metre by order dated 22-2-86. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 took the view that in a portion of the plots the building was in existence and the area cannot be treated as mainly used for agricultural purpose. The petitioners have challenged these orders in this petition.