M C SANYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These connected petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution are directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Dehra Dun, dated Nov. 9, 1982, in proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) One Lieutenant Colonel D. Sanyal was owner of the premises No. 26-B, Mohini Road, Dehra Dun, comprising of three dwelling units and having the total area of 7395 square meters. The covered area is 554 square meters. Upon the commencement of the Act, D. Sanyal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Objector') put in statement under S.6(1) asserting that there was no surplus vacant land held by him. On March 23, 1977, he executed a will whereby he bequeathed the property to his three grandsons. The objector died on April 21, 1977. The legatees filed statements thereafter under S.15 of the Act. The competent authority was of the view that the shares of these legatees under the will could not be taken into account inasmuch as the determination of the extent of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit was to be made in reference to the date of the commencement of the Act and not with reference to the period subsequent thereto. He also was of the view that regard been had to the S.4(9) the land to be treated as vacant over and above the ceiling limit is 3841 square meters. Against this decision of the competent authority dated Nov. 17, 1980, there was appeal filed under S.33 of the Act in the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge affirmed the finding of the competent authority to the effect that the determination of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has to be in reference to the date of the enforcement of the Act and not in reference to the date of the death of the objector. As regards the application of S.4(9) of the Act, however, the decision taken was that the vacant land over and above the ceiling limit is 1841 square meters only.

(3.) Brigadier M. C. Sanyal one of the legatees, under the will dated March 23, 1977, and also the executor has preferred the writ petition 1073 of 1983. The other petition has been filed by the State, which assails the view taken by the appellate authority in regard to the application of S.4(9) of the Act. Both these petitions were heard together.