PRAN NATH KAPOOR Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against judgment dated 9.7.1986 of a learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 3071 of 1979. The appellants Pran Nath Kapoor and his wife Smt. Primila Wati are the owners of House No. 52, Circular Road, Amritsar. The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 considered the property of the appellants for computing surplus vacant land upon a statement filed by the appellant Pran Nath under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act 1976). The Competent Authority while computing the vacant surplus land in Kothi No. 52, Circular Road, Amritsar found the total area of the land as 2090 Sq. Mts., while the servant quarters had covered built up area of 51 Sq. Mts. The gate had covered built up area of 26 Sq. Mts. The total built up area was, thus, 264.50 Sq. Mts. The Competent Authority allowed 500 Sq. Mts. area as land appurtenant to the main building and further area of 500 Sq. Mts. as land contiguous thereto in respect of the main building Under Section 2(q) (ii) of the Act 1976. He allowed 500 Sq. Mts. as a land appurtenant to the servant quarters. A total area of 1764.50 Sq. Mts. comprising of built up area, appurtenant land and land contiguous was, thus, deducted from the total area of 2090 Sq. Mts. leaving a balance of 325.50 Sq. Mts. The Competent Authority declared an area of 325 Sq. Mts. surplus in the holding of the appellants

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Competent Authority the Urban Land Ceiling Officer, Amritsar, the appellants filed an appeal Under Section 33 of the Act 1976 before the Appellate Court of Competent Authority, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.9.1979. Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 3071 of 1979, which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble D.S. Tewatia, J) as then he was on 9.7.1986 and the same was dismissed. Now the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been assailed in this appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned D.A.G. Punjab for the respondents. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the judgments of the Appellate Authority and Competent Authority - the Urban Land Ceiling Officer, Amritsar.