STATE OF U P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions challenge the judgment of the District Judge, Meerut, disposing of Urban Ceiling Appeals Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1980.

(2.) THE only point involved before the District Judge and before me in these writ petitions was, could the proceedings under the Urband Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, be taken in respect of the lands involved in these three cases on account of those lands having been notified under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition. THE learned District Judge answered this question in the negative holding that as the land was intended to be acquired by the State Government for making constructions, the entire land would be excluded from the total holding of the respondents for the purposes of computing the excess vacant land under the Ceiling Act.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of the three appeals aforesaid by the learned District Judge, the respondent relied upon the aforesaid notification and contended that the lands in respect of which proceedings under the Act had been taken, had been notified under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same could not be declared surplus treating it to be that of the respondent. The learned District Judge accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the three appeals. Against these three judgments in the three appeals, the present writ petitions have been filed.