SHAUKAT ALI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgments and Orders dated 12-5-1983 and 8- 2-1983, contained in Annexure 5 and 6 to the writ petition, passed by respon dents, No. 1 and 2 respectively in the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceil ing and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act. '

(2.) IT appears that it was in the year 1976, immediately after the Act was en forced, petitioner filed his return under Sec tion 6 (1) of the Act disclosing the area of residential and agricultural land held by him on the relevant date. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the draft state ment under Section 8 (3) by the respondent No. 2 the competent authority, whereby 13807. 18 Sq. mts. land of the petitioner was sought to be declared as excess vacant land. Against the aforesaid draft statement the petitioner filed his objection mainly con tending that agricultural land cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of the present Act. IT was also pleaded that over plot No. 409 on an area measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas there existed old construc tion which was used as form house for keep ing cattle, the same was incorrectly included while calculating the ceiling limit of the petitioner. Petitioner also filed an applica tion under Section 20 of the Act before the State Government for the exemption of the agricultural land.

(3.) ON the other hand learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the appointed day for the purpose of present case, shall be on the date when the Master Plan was en forced in Aligarh. After enforcement of Master Plan the competent authority had the jurisdiction to determine the ceiling area of the petitioner and to declare excess vacant land, if any, held by him. In support of his submission the learned Standing Coun sel placed reliance upon the provisions of clause (o) of Section 2 and Section 6 of the Act. In substance the submission by the learned Standing Counsel is that the Act will have to be given effect to by stages meaning thereby, even if, on the appointed day there existed on Master Plan and the Master Plan is thereafter sanctioned and enforced the Act shall apply from the date of enforcement of the Master Plan. He submits that in the present case Master Plan was enforced on 12-4-1978, therefore, the com petent authority was justified in issuing draft statement under Section 8 of the Act after the said date and to determine the ceiling limit of the petitioner.