Tejpal vs State of U.P. and Others

B.S. Chauhan, J.—Petitioner has filed the instant petition against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Aligarh, passed in Urban Land (Selling) Misc. Appeal No. 112 of 1983 filed u/s 13 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') holding that the Petitioner was having land measuring 6,090 sq. meters as surplus within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act.

The contention for the Petitioner is that plot No. 78 constitutes the agricultural land and his contention had been repelled in the appeal by holding that though the said plot is recorded in the revenue record as agricultural land but as the Explanation to Section 2(o) clearly laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of the Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, even if land has been specified in the master plan for the purpose other than agriculture. The main contention of the Petitioner before this Court is that admittedly on the date of commencement of the said Act, there was no master plan, much less a sanctioned plan or a map thereon. Thus any master plan which might have been prepared subsequently could not have been applied in the case of the Petitioner. Learned standing counsel could not point out anything contrary to the said submission nor it has been denied in the counter - affidavit filed on behalf of the State-Respondent. The question stands concluded by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others[OVERRULED], , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as Under:

There is no dispute that the Act came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 17.2.76 and there was no master plan for the area in Aligarh at that time. However, a master plan for Aligarh was made on 24.2.1980 wherein the land in dispute was shown The scheme of the Act supports the construction that the aforesaid Explanation (c) means that if the land has been specified in the master plan existing at the time of commencement of the Act for a purpose other than agriculture, then the land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of the Explanation and not if the land is specified in a master plan prepared after the commencement of the Act. The plain language of Explanation (c) bears this construction and requires it to be so construed in rocker to harmonies it with the other provisions and scheme of the Act. Just as the holder of the land cannot by his subsequent actions reduce the area of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, the authorities too cannot by any subsequent action increase the area of the excess vacant land by a similar action. The ''master plan'' defined in Section 2 tiff and referred in the definition of ''urban land'' in Section 2(o) including Explanation (c) therein is obviously a master plan prepared and in existence at the time of commencement of the Act when by virtue of Section 2 of the Act, rights of the holder of the land Under the Act get crystallized and extinguish his right to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The proceedings for determining the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit according to the machinery provisions in the Act is merely for quantification, and to effectuate the rights and liabilities which have crystallized at the time of commencement of the Act. The contrary view taken on the construction made of these provisions by the High Court cannot, therefore, be accepted.

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Consequently the judgments and orders of the District Judge dated 9.12.83 passed in U.L.C. Misc. Appeal No. 112 of 1983 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) declaring the land measuring 6,090 sq. meters as surplus and of Respondent No. 3 dated 9.8.82 (Annexure 2) to the writ petition are set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.