STATE OF U P Vs. VINOD CHANDRA MAURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. Heard Shri Shyam Narain, learned counsel for the respondent and Shri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE Appeal of the respondents has been allowed by the District Judge, Dehradun, following the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary, AIR 1979 SC 1415, as the contention of the respon dent/appellant had been that the land in dispute was not subject matter of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. THE case of the respondent-appellant had been that the land in dispute does not fall within the Municipal Limit or Master plan. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has said that the land, which is not covered within the Municipal Limit or Master plan, cannot be made subject matter of the provisions of the said Act of 1976 though there may be proposal to include the area contiguous or adjacent to the Municipal Limit of the city or town. In the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begun v. State of U. P. , AIR 1993 SC 2465, the Supreme Court has observed that the Master plan should be in existence on the date of the commencement of the Act and if it is framed subsequent to the said date the authority cannot be permitted to increase the area of the vacant land by a subsequent action.