JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is an appeal under Section 33(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act against the order dated 12-5-1982 passed by the Competent Authority in U.L.C Case No. 449/76. Sri S.P. Misra, lawyer appearing tor the appellant argues that Competent Authority has not taken into account the tank and has not excluded it. Further he says that he has tiled an objection petition to the Draft Statement. In the said objection petition he had pointed out that 0.400 acre in Plot No. 868, Khatas No. 59 in village Khannagar his neighbour has encroached and has acquired adverse possession. No enquiry has been made by the Competent Authority of this matter. In the objection petition, appellant states that in Plot No.868, Khata No. 59 his father has half share in the land and the balance Area is the share of the appellant and his two brothers with l/3rd each. 2. He further points out that the draft Record-of-Rights of the Current Settlement shows part of this plot to be in the possession of his neighbour and the balance area in his name. Spot enquiry has been done behind his back in this as alleged by Sri Misra. He further says that he has got a cow-shed and 0.050 acre of constructed area and no appurtenant land has been given for this in his favour. Finally he argues that tank measuring 0.078 acre is to be excluded The balance area is only 0.020 acre which should be his appurtenant land. Thus there will be no surplus. 3. Additional Standing Counsel argues that the area claimed to be a tank was seen by the Competent Authority on the spot. It is recorded as agricultural land in the R.O.R. It lies between Jagannath Road and Kathajori embankment and is very close to the Industrial Estate. It has been lying fallow for long and new construction has just been started. Therefore, the Competent Authority held that there is no building on the date the Act came into force and that the land is only a ditch and not a tank. Earth was dug from this for construction elsewhere. Hence the ditch. 4. As regards encroachment by his neighbour, the appellant has not adduced any evidence. Even if there is encroachment, ownership continues with the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Act. 5. Earth was dug from this for construction elsewhere. Hence the ditch. 4. As regards encroachment by his neighbour, the appellant has not adduced any evidence. Even if there is encroachment, ownership continues with the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Act. 5. He further argues that we should not depend on the draft R.O.R. as it is not final. 6. I agree with the Competent Authority and the Additional Standing Counsel that the disputed land cannot be treated as a tank. It is recorded as agricultural land and is located in a good locality for building as it is very close to the Industrial Estate and National High Way adjoins it. As a matter of fact, somebody has started to construct a building recently on this plot. Therefore, there is no case for excluding this area as tank. 7. As regards encroachment, proper order of the Civil Court is not available conferring adverse possession of his neighbour. Therefore, there is no case for excluding it from appellant's holding. 8. I dismiss this appeal and uphold the order of the Competent Authority. 9. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed