STATE OF U P Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders passed by the Competent authority and the District Judge in proceedings arising out of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. THE opposite party no. 1 was holding an area of 2971.91 sq. meters in village Devpur which falls in urban agglomeration of category 'o' Lucknow. Proceedings under the said Act started which were objected to by the opposite party. THE competent authority vide its order dated 21-2-79 partially accepted the objection and declared an area of 1471.91 sq. metres as surplus land. Against the said order the opposite party filed an appeal which was partly allowed and the order of the competent authority was modified to the extent that the surplus land was held to be 1656.91 sq. metres instead of 1471.91 sq. metres. THE State has challenged the said order. Sri S. M. K. Choudhary appearing on behalf of the State contended that the District Juge has failed to consider the provisions of Section 4 (9) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-hereinafter referred as Act-and erred in applying section 2 (q) in determining the vacant land. Section 2 (q) reads as follows ; -

(2.) SECTION 4 (9) provides that apart from holding vacant land if a person holds any other land over which there is (sic) dwelling unit, then the land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant to such building shall also be taken into account for calculating vacant land. The section thus is attracted in those cases where a person holds vacant land in addition to other land having building over it as the word appurtenant does not mean land contiguous and close to building but the very land on which building stands (see State of V. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1983 AWC 798 SC. In Johnson's case it has been further laid down that other land occupied by the building does not mean some other plot but the very land a portion of which is occupied by the building. In the said case the question arose as to how the computation will be made if a person holds some completely vacant, some partly built and partly vacant, the competent authority will total the entire area of the land in various places may it be completely vacant or partly vacant the land holder is to be permitted to retain 2000 meters or less as provided in clauses (a) to (d) of section 4 (1) and given the land holder option (as provided under section 6) to select the area which he desires to retain provided the same does not exceed the ceiling limit and has been under section 2 (q) (ii) of the Act. 'Vacant land' does not include an area where there are building regulation, the land occupied by by building and the land appurtenant to such building under section 2 (g) (i) of the Act define land appurtenant to any building (i) in an area where there are building regulation to be kept as open space for enjoyment of such building which is no side shall exceed 500 metres. The land appurtenant has been defined and it will have not the same meaning where there are building regulations or where there are no building regulations or the area in question does not come within the purview of any such building regulations. In Johnson's case (supra) the question where building regulations apply was not considered as such while defining the scope of SECTION 4(9) of the Act. There is no inconsistency between section 2 (g) (i), 2 (q) (ii) and section 4 (9) of the Act. Although appurtenant land as mentioned in section 4 (9) means land under the building but in areas covered by Building Regulations by legal view it would include land not covered by building upto the extent of 500 metres if the same was required for beneficial enjoyment of building It is settled law that deeming clause by legal fiction brings into existence or in reality is not or enlarges the purposes or in certain events which otherwise would not be covered by a particular section of a statute if it is so provided by the statute itself. It is also settled that all the relevant provisions of the statutue are to be read together and that too homogeneously and in case they are irreconcilable then the question of conflict will arise. Where there are building regulations and restrictions for such cases only the deeming part enlarges the meaning of word appurtenant or vacant land. There is no conflict between SECTION 4 (9) of the Act and the inclusive definition of the vacant land or appurtenant land given in SECTION 2 (q) (ii) and 2 (g) (i) respectively. The District Judge in the instant case was dealing with a case covered by Building Regulations, as such he rightly applied SECTION 2 (g) (i) and 2 (q) (ii) in granting 500 metres of the land to opposite party and in doing so no violation has been done to the provisions of SECTION 4 (9) of the Act. There being no error or misreading or misinterpretation by the District Judge, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.