JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---The petitioner is the owner of the plot No. 422/A Shivaji Nagar. The area of this plot admittedly is 2020.11 sq. metres. On a portion in all measuring 280./15 sq. metres, a building is situated. The petitioner submitted his return under section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "The Urban Ceiling Act"). The draft statement was issued on 3-8-1977. The petitioner objected to the same. By his order dated 19-10-1977, the petitioners objections were overruled by the competent authority and final statement in tabular form was prepared. Petitioner was found to be surplus holder to the extent of 216.82 sq. metres. Petitioner challenged this order in appeal to the Commissioner, Pune. By his order dated 27-11-1979, the appeal was dismissed and order of the competent authority was confirmed. Validity of this order is challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Shri P.J. Vaidya, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that both the authorities below have virtually ignored the definition of vacant land as set out in section 2(g) of the Act as also the definition of the land appurtenant set out in section 2(g) of the Act. To our mind, contention of Mr. Vaidya is well founded. Now, the definition of the word vacant land in section 2(q) indicates what is not to be included therein. Under sub-clause (ii) of the definition, land occupied by any building is liable to be excluded from the conception of vacant land as also land appurtenant to the said building. It is not disputed that on this piece of land, there exist a building an the building occupies a total area of about 280.15 sq. metres. Under the definition of the word land appurtenant in section 2(g) of the Act, the maximum area of the land required to be kept as open space is 500 sq. metres. In cases where, the buildings are constructed before the appointed day, the additional extent of such open space not exceeding to 500 sq. metres is also covered by the land appurtenant. It is not in dispute that the land is situated in Pune in which building regulation exists with regard to how much area is to be kept as open space adjacent to any building. Thus, the area of the land measuring 280.15 sq. metres is also covered by the land appurtenant. It is not in dispute that the land is situated in Pune in which building regulation exists with regard to how much area is to be kept as open space adjacent to any building. Thus, the area of the land measuring 280.15 sq. metres covered by the building and the area of 500 sq. metres by way of land appurtenant in terms of section 2(g)(i) and additional land appurtenant inclusive of Clause 2(g)(i) and 2(g)(ii) is liable to be excluded from the conception of vacant land. If this total of 1280 sq. metres is excluded from the total 2020 sq. metres only the area of 740 sq. metres remains for consideration. Admittedly, the area in which land is situated is urban agglomeration falling within category B specified in Schedule I. Ceiling limit thereunder is 1000 sq. metres. As the open space left by the petitioner after deducting the area covered by the building and the land covered by the definition of land appurtenant is only 740 sq. metres, the petitioner cannot be held to be surplus holder. It is difficult to spell out how exactly two courts have calculated the area of the land held by the petitioner. Obviously, the area of the land appurtenant and additional land appurtenant has been lost sight of. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 3. We accordingly make the rule absolute and quash the orders of the competent Authority and the Additional Commissioner. 4. Petitioner will get his costs from the respondents. Petition allowed. -----