STATE OF U.P.versusSHER SINGH AND ORS.

                                                                      /
                                 STATE OF U.P.                                      A
                                         v.
                            SHER SINGH AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 17, 1996

                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
                                                                                    B

            Urban Land (Ceiling& Regulation) Act, 1976: Section 6(1) Holder of
    urban vacant land-Declaration filed under Section 6-Competent authority
    observing that declarant was holding land in excess of ceiling-Appeal
    preferred be/ore District Judge-Declarant dying during pendency of ap-          C
    peal-Matterremitted to competent authority-Writ preferred by State against
    remand order dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Held the crucial date is the
    date of declaration filed under Section 6(1) before the competent
    authority-After the demise of landowner the question of intestate or the tes-
    tamentary succession does not arise-The District Judge, there/ore, was not      D
    right in remanding the matter for fresh consideration and computation.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1350 of


-   1986.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.84 of the Allahabad High
    Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2589 of 1982.
                                                                                    E

            R.C. Verma for R.B. Mishra for the Appellant.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered:
                                                                                    F
           This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned
    single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on August 10, 1984
    dismissing Writ Petition No. 2589/82. The admitted position is Ram Het
    had filed a suit for declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling
    & Regulation) Act, 1976. The competent authority prepared the draft
    statement and issued the notice and after-hearing the objections observed G
    that the declarant was in possession of 1146.0430 sq. mts. of land in excess
    of the ceiling prescribed. Thereon, an appeal was filed before the District
    Judge, Pending disposal of the appeal, the declarant died. The District
    Judge remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent
    authority. Again the competent authority by its order dated August· 17, 1981 H
                                         273
    274                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP.10 S.C.R.

A   determi,ned the excess vacant land as 1146.0430 sq. mts. The respondents
    again filed an appeal before the Disttict Judge who remitted the matter to
    the competent authority. Against the remand order, the Government filed
   writ petition which was dismissed. thus, this appeal. It is contended that
    the only question that requires to be decided is: whether the legal repre-
B sentatives can claim proportionate shares, after the demise of the
    declarant? The High Court has given a finding that the appropriate date,
    on which the entitlement has to be considered, is the date on which the
    declaration under Section 6 was filed and on that date Ram Het was the
  . owner and had filed the declaration in his capacity as holder of the vacant
    urban land. Under these circumstances, after the demise of the declarant,
C the question would be: whether the legal representatives of the holder of
    the urban vacant land could claim any deduction on the basis of their
    interstate or testamentary succession? The crucial date is the date of the
    declaration filed under Section 6(1) before the competent authority. When
    the declaration under Section 6(1) was filed, Ram Het was the holder of
D the urban vacant land and he accordingly filed the declaration. After the
    demise, the question of intestate or the testamentary succession does not
    arise. The District Judge, therefore, was not right in remanding the matter
    again for fresh consideration and computation. Thus, the High Court is not



E
     correct .in not interfering with the appellate order though it found that it
    made a little difference.

           Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order of the
     High Court stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The order of
                                                                                    -
     the appellate authority stands quashed and that of the competent authority
     stands upheld. No costs.

F    T.N.A..                                                    Appeal allowed.