JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-This is a case under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter described as the Act ) which involves interpretation of the provisions of the Act on which there are two conflicting judgments of this Court.

2. One Gopichand filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the Act in the office of the Competent Authority, Meerut, on 24.10.76 in respect of two properties :-

1. Khasra No. 1685 measuring 1545 square metres situated at Beri Pura Road, Meerut City.

2. Khasra Nos. 1969 and 1970 measuring 1630 square metres situated on Delhi Road, Meerut City. In this plot stood a factory having 493 square metres of covered area and 1156 square metres of open land.

3. The Competent Authority, after examination of the facts, held that an area measuring 910.50 square metres was vacant land of Gopi Chand.

4. An objection under Section 8(3) of the said Act was filed on 26.9.77 by the legal heirs of Gopi Chand who had died in the meantime. Their contention was that there was no vacant surplus land and the order of the Competent Authority was not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

5. The District Judge, Meerut, who heard the appeal, held that the Competent Authority had wrongly construed Section 4(9) of the Act. That provision, according to the District Judge, came into play only when there was vacant land and other land having a building with a dwelling unit thereon. In the instant case, there was no dwelling unit but a factory. Therefore, the covered area on which factory stood could not be taken into account in computation of vacant land. The District Judge also pointed out that no constructions were permissible on an area measuring 1358 square metres of land held by Gopi Chand. However, construction was permissible on an area measuring 1384 square metres which was well within the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act.

6. The decision of the District Judge was challenged before the High Court at Allahabad by the State of U.P. It was held by the High Court that interpretation of Section 2(g)(i) made by the District Judge was not correct. The controversy was concluded by a judgment of that Court in the case of Prem Nath Duggal v. State of U.P., which had been decided on 16.8.1984.

7. In the appeal before us, a point was sought to be raised about the ownership of the factory. That point, however, was not gone into and decided by the High Court. Therefore, this question cannot be raised at this stage. The only question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether Gopi Chand at the material time held vacant land in excess of ceiling limit fixed by the Act ?

8. Dwelling unit , land appurtenant and vacant land have been defined by Section 2 :-

"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

... ... ... ...

(e) dwelling unit , in relation to a building or a portion of a building, means a unit of accommodation, in such building or portion, used solely for the purpose of residence;

.... ... ... ...

(g) land appurtenant , in relation to any building, means-

(i) in an area where there are building regulations, the minimum extent of land required under such regulations to be kept as open space for the enjoyment of such building, which in no case shall exceed five hundred square metres; or

(ii) in an area where there are no building regulations, an extent of five hundred square metres contiguous to the land occupied by such building,

and includes, in the case of any building constructed before the appointed day with a dwelling unit therein, an additional extent not exceeding five hundred square metres of land, if any, contiguous to the minimum extent referred to in sub-clause (i) or the extent referred to in sub-clause (ii), as the case may be;

... ... ... ...

(q) vacant land means land, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agricul