STATE OF U P Vs. L J JHONSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI L. T. Jhonson, respondent No. 1, was owner of premises No. 186, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, having a total area of 2530 square metres. He moved an application on 28-4-1977 under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, here- inafter referred to as "the Act" for permission to sell the aforesaid premises to Major General Prem Chandra, resident of B 96, Basant Bahar, New Delhi. The competent authority refused to grant the permission applied for, since, in his opinion, after excluding 192.09 sqr. metres because of the provisions of U. P. Roadside Land Control Act 1945, there was still left 2337 square metres, which was more than the ceiling limits of 20.00 square metres, permitted under the Act for Dehradun. SRI Jhons-on preferred an appeal against that order before the District Judge. Two submissions were made on his behalf, firstly, under Rule 44 of the Building Bye Laws of City Board, Dehradun, he was required to leave 25 feet in front 15 feet in the back and 20 feet on either side and that worked out to 1092 square metres and after excluding the same he was left only with 1438 square metres, which was below the premissible limit ; and, secondly, he could construct only over 60 percent of the total area of the land and that would exclude about 1030 square metres and he would thus have been left with 1500 square metres only which was also within the permissible limit. The Building Bye Laws of the City Board, Dehradun, were produced before the District Judge. The District Judge accepted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent and held that after excluding the land on which constructions were not permissible, the land left was within the permissible limit and hence permission under Section 27 of the Act should have been granted. This order forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Competent Authority, Dehradun.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties at some length I am of the opinion that the order of the District Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Section 3 of the Act provides that "except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-section (2) of Section 1." The definition of 'vacant land' is contained in Section 2 (q) of the Act and the relevant portion reads as follows :-

(3.) I do not think that Section 4 (9) of the Act is applicable to the instant case as contended by the learned Standing Counsel. That sub-section reads as under :-