JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-The question for determination in these appeals is whether it is the master plan that was in existence when the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act ) was enforced, and not the plan prepared subsequently, that has to be taken into consideration to determine if land is vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under the Act.

2. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, relying upon the decision of a Bench of two Judges in Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC 546], has held that when the land was not vacant land on the date of the commencement of the Act, the authorities cannot convert that land into vacant land by their unilateral act by including it in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture. On this view, the proceedings taken under the Act have been declared null and void by the High Court.

3. Since reconsideration of the decision in Atia Begum s case was sought, it was directed by a Bench of Two Judges that these matters be placed before a three Judges Bench. Therefore, these appeals have been placed before us.

4. Atia Begum s case also came to be considered