JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:—These appeals by special leave are the judgment and order dated 12-11-1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 4018 of 1980 and 5174 of 1980 which were filed by the appellant and the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment dated 12-2-1980 of the District Judge, Aligarh in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 24 of 1979 (sic). The competent authority declared that the appellant had 19813.83 sq. mts. of vacant land in Aligarh in excess of the ceiling limit but the District Judge reduced the area of the excess land to 6738.23 sq. mts. Against the order of the District Judge, both sides filed writ petitions. The High Court dismissed appellants writ petition and partly allowed the writ petition of the State Government. This has led to the filing of these appeals against the High Courts order made in these two writ petitions against the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued for restoration of the District Judges order whereby an area of 6738.23 sq. mts. was declared to be in excess of the ceiling limit as against 19813.83 sq. mts. declared by the competent authority. The High Court set aside the District Judges order on the construction it made of Explanation (C) in Section 2(o) defining urban land in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The definition of urban land in Section 2(o) excludes from its ambit, land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Thereafter, the Explanation for the purpose of clause (o) defining urban land and clause (q) defining vacant land is given. Clause (A) of the Explanation defines agriculture. There is no dispute that the vacant land of which exclusion is claimed by the appellant on the ground that it is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture is so used according to the definition of agriculture. There is also no dispute that clause (B) of the Explanation is satisfied by the appellant since the land was entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture. The only dispute is with regard to clause (C) of the Explanation which reads as under : -

"(C) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture;"

3. There is no dispute that the Act came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 17-2-1976 and there was no master plan for that 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 High Court has taken the view that the appellants land could not be treated as mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of Explanation (C) because it was shown in the master plan made on 24-2-1980. The correctness of this view has been challenged in these appeals.

4. Some other provisions of the. Act which are material for deciding this question may now be referred. Section 3 enacts that except as otherwise provided in the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Accordingly, the right of the person to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit ceased on the date of commencement of the Act even though determination of the excess area had to be made under the machinery provisions, thereafter, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The area of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit held by the appellant has, therefore, to be determined as on 17-2-1976 when the Act came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Clause (a) of Section 2 defines appointed day to mean the date of introduction of the Bill in Parliament in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first instance like the State of Uttar Pradesh and that date is 28-1-1976. Section 5 of the Act provides that any transfer made of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at