State of U.P. vs Vinod Chandra Maurya and Others

B.S. Chauhan, J.—Heard Shri Shyam Naraln,learned counsel for the Respondent and Shri KM. Sahai, learned standing counsel.

The appeal of the Respondents has been allowed by the District Judge, Dehradun, following the judgment in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary and Others, , as the contention of the Respondent Appellant had been that the land in dispute was not subject-matter of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The case of the Respondent-Appellant had been that the land in dispute does not fall within the municipal limit or master plan. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has said that the land, which is not covered within the municipal limit or master plan, cannot be made subject-matter of the provisions of the said Act of 1976 though there may be proposal to include the area contiguous or adjacent to the municipal limit of the city or town. In the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others[OVERRULED], , the Supreme Court has observed that the master plan should be in existence on the date of the commencement of Act and if it Is framed subsequent to the said date, the authority cannot be permitted to increase the area of the vacant land by a subsequent action.

In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition and it stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.