RAMPYARI Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which has been urged in this writ petition is that for the purpose of determining the vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the competent authority is supposed to see the nature of the land as it was on the appointed date. The fact that a master - plan was prepared for the urban regulations would not govern the nature of the land. As above the only contention which is being raised, it is not necessary to note any other fact.

(2.) THE law in this regard has since been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Atia Mohanmadi Begum v. State of U. P. : (1993) 3 SCC 546.

(3.) IN view of the above, this petition is allowed. The competent authority shall determine the vacant land afresh after taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court and also the two decision referred to above.