PRATAP RAO PHALKE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under . 226 by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, declaring the land as 'vacant' is being impugned. The petition arises out of the following facts. The land belonging to the petitioner/(s) has been declared as 'vacant' land. This has been done by taking notice of a Master Plan. This Master Plan came into existence after the 'appointed day'. It is on this basis, an argument has been raised that the nature of the land is to be seen on the 'appointed day' and in case the Master Plan has come into existence later on, then, that cannot be made the basis for determining the character of the land. This matter was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P. (1993) 2 SCC 546 and it was observed as under :

(2.) 1994 (II) MPWN 56. Hon'ble Shri A.K. Mathur, J, relying on the aforementioned decision, came to the conclusion that the nature of the land is to be seen ignoring the Master Plan. The same view was expressed by this Court in the case of Preetam Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (Misc. Petition No. 948 of 1990, decided on 26.8.1994).