AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Since common questions of law are involved in the aforesaid two petitions, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment with the consent of the parties' learned counsel.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS were initiated under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the Act) for determination of excess vacant land held by the petitioner. According to ceiling statements, the petitioner was shown to be possessed of certain land in excess of ceiling limit which are proposed to be declared as such. The petitioner filed objection, inter alia, on the ground that the land shown in the draft statement prepared under Section 8 of the Act included certain plots of land which were used mainly for agricultural purpose and hence the same were not liable to be taken into consideration while determining the excess vacant land. The competent' authority, it seems, rejected the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that the land recorded as agricultural one was specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture and accordingly, it declared certain land held by the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioner, however, preferred appeal which was allowed by the District Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.7.1986 on the ground that there was no valid master plan for the development of the municipal area of Saharanpur and, therefore, the land recorded in the revenue papers as agricultural land would not be treated as 'vacant land'. It appears that subsequently on 29.9.1987, a master plan was enforced in the municipal area of Saharanpur, whereupon the petitioner was called upon, by means of the impugned notice dated 8.3.1988, to submit statement under Section 6 (1) of the Act regarding vacant land held by him in excess of the ceiling limit. It is the validity of this notice which is under challenge here in these writ petitions.

(3.) IT is thus evident that any land which is mainly used for purpose of agriculture is treated neither as "urban land" nor "vacant land" for the purpose of determination of excess vacant land under the Act. However, notwithstanding the fact that any land is entered in the revenue or land records as for agriculture and is mainly used as such, it would not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture within the meaning of clauses (o) and (q) of Section 2 of the Act if it has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture (See Explanation (c) of Section 2 (o) of the Act. In other words, land specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture has to be treated both as "urban land" and "vacant land" for the purpose of determination of excess land under the provisions of the Act notwithstanding its main user being for agriculture purpose.