PRAN NATH DUGGAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been preferred against the judgment of the District Judge, Meerut dated 31-5-1982, dismissing the appeals of the two petitioners filed under Section 33 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the points involved in these two writ petitions are common, the facts of only one of them, namely, writ petition no. 8367 of 1982, would be sufficient to decide the two cases.

(2.) ON October 15, 1976, the petitioner filed a return under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, a draft statement was prepared by the Competent Authority and served upon the petitioner proposing to declare 334683 sq. mts. of land as surplus with the petitioner. The petitioner went up in appeal which was dismissed on 31-5-1982. Hence; the writ.

(3.) SECTION 2 (o) of the Act defines urban land. It has two clauses which are as under: (i) any land situated within the limits of urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan; or (ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality (by whatever name called), a notified area committee, a town area committee, a city and town committee, a small town committee, a cantonment board or a panchayat, but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture.