ORDER
Jhunjhunuwala, J.
1. Though the facts involved are not in dispute, the only question which requires consideration is whether reservation of urban land in the ‘Zonal Plan’ and not in ‘Master Plan’ is sufficient for consideration thereof as part of the ‘vacant land’ as defined in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The Original Petitioner owned and possessed four pieces of land, two of which were non-agricultural and the remaining two were agricultural land. The Original Petitioner filed a Statement under Section 6(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority, Sholapur Urban Agglomeration, Sholapur in respect of his holdings. After receipt of the said Statement, the 2nd Respondent prepared a draft Statement under Section 8(3) of the Act and called upon the Original Petitioner to file his objection thereto. The Original Petitioner submitted his objections to the draft Statement and inter alia contended that the draft Statement prepared by the 2nd Respondent was not admitted as correct. The Original Petitioner also contended that he was cultivating and taking crops in two pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 152/2 and 192 and as such, the same were to be exempted while calculating the vacant land held by the Original Petitioner. Despite the objections of the Original Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent confirmed the draft Statement prepared by him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Final Statement prepared under Section 8(4) of the said Act and the Order dated 7th February, 1980 passed by the Competent Authority, the Original Petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Collector, Sholapur being ULC Appeal No. 12 of 1980. The Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 20th May, 1981 dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the Final Statement prepared by the Competent Authority. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Original Petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since, during the pendency of this Petition, the Original Petitioner has died, his heirs have been brought on record who are prosecuting the Petition.
4. Section 2(q) of the Act defines vacant land as under :
“Vacant Land means land, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include…..”
As per the said definition, the land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture in an Urban Agglomeration is excluded. Section 3 of the Act prohibits any person to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the ceiling limit and as per Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4, the ceiling limit of Sholapur Urban Agglomeration is 1500 sq. metres. Accordingly, the Original Petitioner was entitled to hold the vacant land to the extent of 1500 sq. metres.
5. Section 2(o) of the Act defines the ‘urban land’ to mean any land situated within the limits of an Urban Agglomeration and referred as such in the Master Plan but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. Further, as per the explanation to Section 2(o), 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 the purpose other than agriculture. Therefore, land situated within the limits of urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the Master Plan could be treated as urban land within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Act. If any land though situate within the limits of an urban agglomeration but not referred as such in the Master Plan, such land will not be treated as urban land within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the said Act. In the instant case, though the said agricultural pieces of land are situate within the limits of Sholapur Urban Agglomeration, admittedly the same are not referred as such in the Master Plan though referred in the Zonal Plan. Since the said two pieces of land are admittedly not referred in the Master Plan for the purpose of calculation of excess land, if any, held by the Original Petitioner, the same cannot be taken into consideration. In our this view, we are supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Udhav Tatya Bhopale v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992 (2) Mah LJ 1432. We are informed that though special leave petition has been filed against the said judgment which is admitted and still pending, stay of operation of the said judgment has not been granted by the Supreme Court.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b). There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
7. Petition allowed.
