ORDER K.C. Agrawal, J. - Major Sardar Mohindra. respondent No. 2 filed his return under S. 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the return respondent No. 2 showed three properties which are as under : (i) 152, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, total area 3310 Sq. mts. and there is a grove on 22526.40 on this property and it also consisted of constructed area of 345.12 Sq. mts. (ii) Plot No. 191 and 188/2 situated in village Malsi total area 1551 Sq. nits. The aforesaid plots are totally open land without any construction. (iii) Plot No. 274/2 situated in village Malsi, total area 1560 Sq. mts. and this plot is also totally open land without any construction. 2. The Competent Authority got the property surveyed and inspected and hereafter after considering the entire material on record issued a draft proposal under S. 8(3) of the Act showing the total area regarding property No. 1 as 3316 Sq. Mts. situated at 152, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Out of this area 345.12 Sq. Mts. was constructed. The second property had the total area of 1551 Sq. Mts. and the third has 1560 Sq. mts. Both the second and third properties were open vacant land. Hence the Competent Authority proposed to declare 1948 Sq. Mts. as surplus vacant land in the hands of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed objections to the draft proposal. The competent Authority passed a final order on 12-9-1978 and declared 1948 Sq. Mts. as surplus vacant land in the hands of respondent No. 2 Aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the District Judge which was numbered as U.L.C. Appeal No. 264 of 1978. The District Judge excluded the two properties mentioned above in the judgment at serial Nos. 2 and 3 by holding that the aforesaid plots in village Malsi lie outside the municipal limits of Dehradun and in that view of the matter the Act does not apply. For this view the District Judge relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1415 , Union of India v. Valluri Basavaih Chowdhary. On this basis the District Judge, held that respondent No. 2 did not have any land liable to be declared as surplus. Against this judgment. For this view the District Judge relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1415 , Union of India v. Valluri Basavaih Chowdhary. On this basis the District Judge, held that respondent No. 2 did not have any land liable to be declared as surplus. Against this judgment. the present writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. 3. Before dealing with the plots of village Malsi, I propose to take up first item which is 152, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The District Judge found that the entire area of this property was exempt under the Act. The total area of this building was 3316 Sq. Mts. After deducting 2526.40 Sq. Mts. which was covered by a grove, the remaining is 789.60 Sq. Mts. There is a dwelling unit having an area of 345.12 Sq. Mts. The respondent No. 2 would be entitled to land appurtenant and additional appurtenant for this dwelling unit as well. But as the allowable area under the aforesaid two heads is 1000 Sq. Mts. and the covered area is 345.12. Sq. Mts., the entire area being 789.60 Sq. Mts., the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to retain the entire area of 152, Rajpur Road. But this area as said by the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. v. L.J. Johnson, AIR 1983 SC 1303 : 1983 All LJ 1261 (sic), these two items will be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land. This has been said by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the relevant portion of which is being quoted below : "In the ultimate analysis the position is quite clear that S. 5(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 S. 2(q), (ii) and (iii)". 4. So far as the plots of village Malsi are concerned, the District Judge has clearly erred in holding that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, cannot apply to the urban agglomeration of Dehradun. 5. This sub-section has to be read in conjunction with S. 2(q), (ii) and (iii)". 4. So far as the plots of village Malsi are concerned, the District Judge has clearly erred in holding that the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, cannot apply to the urban agglomeration of Dehradun. 5. S. 3 of the Act provides that except as otherwise provided in this Act on and from the commencement thereof no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-sec. (2) of S. 1. By S. 4(1)(d- the ceiling limit on such land situated in any urban agglomeration falling within category D specified in Schedule 1, is fixed at two thousand Sq. meters and an urban agglomeration is made up of the main town together with the adjoining areas of urban growth and is treated as one urban spread. S. 2(0) defines urban land, it means, inter alia, any land situated within the limits of urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan. The expression urban agglomeration is defined in S. 2(n) of the Act, the material portion of which reads as under : "urban agglomeration" (A) in relation to any State or union territory specified in column (1) of Schedule 1, means. (1) the urban agglomeration specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof and includes the peripheral area specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof; ............" 6. In so far as Dehradun is concerned, the relevant entry is as follows : State/Union territory Town Peripheral area Category 1 2 3 4 Uttar Pradesh Dehra Dun, U.A. (a) Dehra Dun, M.B. & Forest Research Institute & College Area. (b) Dehra Dun, Cantonment 1 K.M. D Challenging the judgment, the learned State counsel relied before me on para 3 of the supplementary affidavit wherein it has been alleged that the municipal limit of the city of Dehradun has been determined. According to this supplementary affidavit plots Nos. 191,183/2 and 274/2 situated in village Malsi are within K.M. from the municipal limit of the city of Dehradun. On this basis the learned counsel argued that all the three plots were covered by the Act. The submission of the standing counsel is well founded. According to this supplementary affidavit plots Nos. 191,183/2 and 274/2 situated in village Malsi are within K.M. from the municipal limit of the city of Dehradun. On this basis the learned counsel argued that all the three plots were covered by the Act. The submission of the standing counsel is well founded. The District Judge erroneously held that since these plots of village Malsi lie outside the municipal limit of Dehradun, the Act does not apply to it. This view is incorrect for two reasons. The first reason is that this village is within the municipal limits as stated above. The second is that the plots being situated within 1 K.M. of peripheral area of Dehradun, the Act was applicable. The Competent Authority had gone into this controversy and found that Malsi village was situated within 1 K. M. of the Dehradun Municipal Board. 6A. In fact the ruling relied upon by the District Judge reported in AIR 1979 SC 1415 (supra) is against the view taken by him. In that case the Supreme Court held : "It is quite clear that under the scheme of the Act the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomeration does not depend on the existence of a master plan. The definition of 'urban land', as contained in S. 2(0) of the Act is in two parts, namely (1) in a case where there is a master plan prepared under the law for the time being in force, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan, is treated to he urban land, and (2) in a case where there is no master plan. or the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality or other local authorities is regarded as such". 7. For what I have said above, I hold that the District Judge has committed an error in reversing the decision of the competent authority and setting aside the same. Consequently, I quash the judgment of the District Judge and restore that of the competent authority by which 1948 Sq. Mts. have been declared as excess vacant land in the hands of the respondent No. 2.