JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is an appeal under Section 33(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. The total land hold by the petitioner is 1.858 acres of which 0.118 acre covered by buildings and 1.740 acres are vacant lands. The Competent Authority has allowed one ceiling of 0.504 acres and declared balance Ac. 1.354 as excess to be surrendered. 2. Sri P.V. Ramdas appearing for the appellant argues that the land belongs to a joint family and is enjoyed by all. He pointes out that on 31-3-1974 there was a family arrangement where separate shares were allocated to each party. Competent Authority did not believe this. Lastly he claims that the so called vacant lands are agricultural lands and as such cannot be declared as vacant land. The Competent Authority has stated that the Master Plan shows that the lands are meant for Government purposes. Sri Ramdas argues that this Master Plan is not specific. As such it is not binding. 3. He relies on a Circular of Government of India dated 29-12-1976 where in it has been stated that major sons and daughters must have separate units. He further argues that only the Appellants share alone should be taken into account in this case. 4. Additional Standing Counsel argues that this is a self-acquired property of the appellant. The children of the appellant do not acquire any right to such property by birth so long as the appellant or his wife is alive. 5. He points out that the appellants has not mentioned in their original statement before the Competent Authority about the family arrangement for any major son or daughter. Only one minor daughter was mentioned for whom the western half of the ground floor of the building was earmarked. For the first time on 8-6-1981 the family arrangement was brought out in an objection petition. The Competent Authority doubted its genuineness as there is no other evidence and this is an unregistered. There is no evidence that this arrangement was acted upon. No steps have been taken by the appellant to record the names of co-sharers separately. Besides the vacant land, there are two other houses belonging to the appellant in Cuttack town. These have not been allotted in the family arrangement. Only the so called agricultural lands have been divided, whereas the buildings are more valuable than the agricultural lands. 6. No steps have been taken by the appellant to record the names of co-sharers separately. Besides the vacant land, there are two other houses belonging to the appellant in Cuttack town. These have not been allotted in the family arrangement. Only the so called agricultural lands have been divided, whereas the buildings are more valuable than the agricultural lands. 6. Additional Standing Counsel further argues that the family arrangement is not bonafide. In column 14 of Annexure-A of the return filed before the Competent Authority, no other interest is mentioned. 7. Lastly he points out that agricultural land can be exempted from the provisions of this Act under Section 20 by the State Government. 8. Sri Ramdas points out that there is no material to show that it is self acquired property. He relies on 1979 Calcutta-Weekly Notes 129 to prove that agricultural character alone is relevant under this Act. 9. The family settlement has been acted upon according to Sri Ramdas and purchase have been given in the names of different persons by the Current Settlement. He says that two other buildings were excluded because they were self acquired property. 10. Addl. Standing Counsel points out that the sale deed does not indicate that it was purchased from joint family funds. 11. I notice that Master Plan shows that these lands are reserved for Government purpose. It is not necessary for the Master Plan to indicate this specifically in respect of these plots or to note the specific purpose. I would, therefore, hold that this is not an agricultural land as such it will be treated as vacant land. 12. After considering the arguments of both the sides carefully, I am inclined to agree with the Competent Authority that the family arrangement is not bonafide. It has not been mentioned in the original return and this has been raised for the first time in 1981. This is an unregistered arrangement. It leaves out two valuable buildings in Cuttack town. The plea that these buildings are self acquired property and these lands are ancestral property is again an after thought. The sale deed does not show that the purchases have been made from joint family funds. 13. I would, therefore, hold that the family arrangement is bogus and that there is no proof that these disputed properties were purchased from joint family funds. The sale deed does not show that the purchases have been made from joint family funds. 13. I would, therefore, hold that the family arrangement is bogus and that there is no proof that these disputed properties were purchased from joint family funds. As such I would hold that they are self-acquired property of the appellant and the sons and daughters have no right to this property so long as the appellant/his wife is alive. 14. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal and uphold the order of Competent Authority. Final Result : Dismissed