RAJEEV DAVE Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought quashing of a judgment and order dated 4-4- 1995 of the District Judge, Allahabad, whereby, while setting aside the order dated 29-12-1994 of the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Al lahabad, He remanded the two cases out of which the appeals before him arose, for disposal afresh in accordance with law.

(2.) THE proceedings before the Competent Authority started on a return under action 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') filed by the petitioner, Rajeev Dave and another return filed by his father R. K. Dave (since deceased and substituted by the petitioner ). THE properties subject-matter of these returns and proceedings were (i) 9/13 Elgin Road, (ii) 10/11 Chah Chand, (iii) 47, Shiv Kuti, (iv) 6/10 Colvin Road, (v) 46 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, all within the City of Allahabad. THE Competent Authority who first decided the matter by his order dated 28-3-1984, held 4707 Sq. metres area in excess of the ceiling limit. During the pendency of the appeal against the same, Sri R. K. Dave died and his legal representatives were imp leaded, hence the District Judge, remanded the case for decision afresh, taking into consideration the share of various heirs.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, Sri S. N. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, has sub mitted that while remanding the case the District Judge, had no jurisdiction to direct the Competent Authority to take into consideration the built up and open area of plot No. 47, Shiv Kuti, because neither the petitioner's appeal was directed in respect of the same nor the State had preferred any appeal. Further it is contended that the learned appellate court failed to consider various built up portions in 6/10 Colvin Road, such as a Tube-well and servants quarters etc. In any case it is contended while remanding the case, the learned District Judge should have avoided to express any categorical opinion and the case as a whole should have been remanded.