ORDER
1. Writ Petition No. 357 of 1902. (hereinafter referred to as the first petition) and writ petition No. 359 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the second petition, involve common question of law and facts, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
2. The first petition filed by the State of U.P. was directed against the appellate judgment dated 22-9-81 passed under S. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 for short the Act. The Second Petition is directed against the order dated 23-9-81 passed by the District Judge, Meerut. In the first petition the point was as to whether the area measuring Sq. metre (sic) was built up and was not to be treated as vacant land within the meaning of S. 4(9) of the. Act. Whereas in the second petition similar point was involved about the interpretation of S. 2(q)(i) of the Act, In that petition it has been held that over an area of 1480 sq. mtrs. no construction was permissible on the land which was within the ceiling limit of respondent No. 2.
3. The District Judge in both these petitions, by taking an erroneous view of the definition of 'vacant land' under S. 2(q)(i)(ii) of the Act, allowed the appeal and modified the order of the trial court by holding in the first petition that an area of 14170 sq mtrs. only was surplus land, whereas in second writ petition it has been held that it was not the vacant surplus land.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that the expression 'vacant land' under S. 2(q)(i) & (ii) of the Act has been explained by a decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. L. J. Johnson, AIR 1983 SC 1303. The same expression has been explained by a full Bench decision of this court in State of U.P. v. Radha Raman Agarwal, AIR 1987 All 272. These decisions have been considered and relied upon in the State of Gujarat v. Purushottam Das Ramdas Patel, AIR 1988 SC 220. Learned Standing Counsel Urged that the expression 'vacant land' has in-
correctly been interpreted by the learned District Judge, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the impugned orders are perfectly correct and the interpretation given to the expression 'vacant land' does not require any further comments and the writ petition filed by the State of U.P. deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. In the first writ petition the District Judge has taken the view that built up area to the extent of 1315 sq. mtrs. was not to be treated as vacant land by virtue of S. 2(q) of the Act, and similarly he has considered plot Nos. 610 & 612 which were in the Master plan as green belt for indiginous industries and no construction was permissible. In State of U.P. v. L. J. Johnson, (Supra), it has been held while interpreting S. 2(g)(i) and (ii) read with S. 4(9) as follows:
"In the ultimate analysis the position is quite clear that Section 4(9) contemplates that if a person holds vacant land as also other portion of land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit, the extent of land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land. This sub-section has to be read in conjunction with section 2(q)(ii) and (iii). A combined reading of these two statutory provisions would lead to the irresistible inference that in cases which fall within the third category mentioned above, the -
(i) total area of the land of a land holder is first to be determined and if the total area, built or unbuilt, falls below 2000 sq. mtrs. in category D areas, there would be no question of any excess land."
6. That case was explained by a subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Radha Raman Agarwal, (AIR 1987 AH 272) (Supra), in para 17 Hon'ble K. J. Shetty, C. J. (as he then was) held that clauses (i) and (ii) of S. 2(q) providing for exclusion of vacant land from the provisions of the Act, are not overlapping. They are mutally exclusive. They deal with different categories of land. Cl. (e) refers to land on which construction of building is not permissible at all either under the building regulations or under the master plan. The prohibition as to construction must, however, be absolute, like the land covered by green belt area or plot preserved for green park or play ground. It may also be such other land like the one dealt with under Direction 16 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Directions, 1960 all that is required is that it is impermissible to construct any building in that land. In other words, Cl. (i) does not cover a plot of land where construction of building is regulated by the building regulations.
7. In State of Gujarat v. Purshottam Das Ramdas Patel (AIR 1988 SC 220) (supra), it has been held (under Para 9), that in order to exclude a land from the definition of 'vacant land' it should be shown that it was a land on which construction of a building was not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land was situated. The question whether a price of land is a vacant land or not does not depend upon the fact whether a prudent man would put up a building on that land or not. The Full Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Radhe Raman Agrawal (AIR 1987 AH 272) (supra) was approved.
8. A bare reading of sub-sec, (ix) of S. 4 leaves no room for doubt that where there is a building with a dwelling unit, the extent of land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in determining the vacant land held by such person. Even the Cl. (i) and (ii) of S. 2(q) are not overlapping rather they are mutually exclusive as they deal with different situation. The learned Distt. Judge ought to have followed elementary rule of interpretation that all the provisions of the statutes have to be read together and same principle applies to read every part of the same section. In other words the interpretation must be texual and contextual. No doubt in such matters where actually general provisions of the Act have to be interpreted, either building has been constructed in accordance with the building regulations or other wise, what is determinative is that the site of the building would be treated to be vacant land. The Act is confiscatory in nature hence statutory provisions have to be strictly interpreted, unless the intention of the legislature appears to be otherwise.
9. In the result, the present petitions succeed and are allowed. The judgments and order dated 22-9-81 and 23-9-81 in the first and second writ petitions respectively, are hereby quashed. The district Judge shall restore the appeals to their original numbers and dispose them of within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before him. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
10. Petitions allowed.