M. P. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are connected. They arise out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are these. The two petitioners in the two separate petitions are co-owners of plot No. 530/1 situated in the Allahabad Urban Agglomeration to the extent of 1/2 each. The proceedings took place under Section 6 (1) of the Act and thereafter the draft-statement in the case of each petitioner were issued under Section 8 (3) of the Act, to each of the two petitioners in case. Thereafter objections were filed and they were decided by the competent Authority. The relevant orders have been annexed to the writ petitions Thereafter, appeals were filed and they were decided by the Dist. Judge, Allahabad as the appellate authority. Both the appeals were dismissed. The appellate judgments are also on the record.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the two petitioners in their separate petitions have come up to this court under Article 226 of the Constn. and in support thereof, I have heard Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.

( 4 ) THREE contentions were pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me. Firstly, it was contended that the areas which had been shown in the draft statements under Section 8 (3)of the Act were incorrect, in and on the spot lesser areas were held by the petitioners. This contention was raised before the competent Authority and before the appellate Court but was rejected on the ground that in the relevant Khatauni for 1382 to 1387 Fs. the area of plot No. 539/1 was mentioned and the same area was shown in the draft statement. Apart from their assertion, the petitioners did not file any evidence to show that the area mentioned in the khatauni was incorrect and that they were in possession of lesser areas. Accordingly the authorities below were justified in rejecting this contention.

( 5 ) THE second contention was raised that under Section 20 of the Act the petitioners had applied for exemption and till the same was decided by the State Government, no orders could be passed by the Prescribed Authority. This contention again cannot be accepted. If the State Government so desires, it can grant the exemption under Section 20 of the Act despite the impugned orders. However, the mere fact that an application has been made under Section 20 of the Act will not take away the case from the jurisdiction of the competent Authority or the appellate Court. Therefore, this contention is also rejected.

( 6 ) THE third and last contention was that the choice of the petitioners as expressed by them in their objections to the draft statements under Section 8 (3) of the Act was binding upon the competent Authority and the same could not be rejected. The appellate Court rejected this contention in these words :

"this third point is equally devoid of any merit inasmuch as in the statement filed by the appellant no choice was given and consequently the Competent Authority at his option could declare the surplus from any portion of the land possessed by the appellant".

In my view the appellate Court was wrong in holding to the said effect. There is nothing in the act which can be said to lay down that if the choice is not expressed under Section 6 (1) of the act then such choice regarding the vacant land to be retained and the vacant land to be surrendered, cannot be exercised at the subsequent stage when the objections under Section 8 (3)to the draft statement are filed. The very fact that the person concerned is called upon to file his objection under Section 8 (3) of the Act leads to the inference that it is open to the person concerned at that stage to express his choice so that instead of the land proposed to be taken as surplus land, some other land of the person concerned should be taken as surplus land. In my view this interpretation is also re-enforced by Part f o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document