JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is an appeal under Section 33(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act against order dated 16-4-1982 and 19-11-1982 passed by the Competent Authority in U. L. C. Case No. 9 of 1976. Appellaut had 2.573 acres of vacant land. By a family settlement he gave away 1.364-6 acres to all of his three daughters and retained for himself the rest of the land. The family settlement was made on 25-12-1969. Competent Authority has accepted this settlement. Settlement Authorities have also accepted this. 2. Out of the balance 1.208.4 acres left to the appellant, a tank covers 0.470 acres. Exempting this, balance is 0.738.4 acres. There are number of roads within the area measuring 0.284 acres. 3. Shri Ashok Mukherjee, Advocate appearing for the appellant argues that appellant is ready to surrender this area of 0.284 acres covered by roads. Competent Authority has declared Ac 0.244 of land as surplus located in some other plots viz. No. 229 and 200 in Khata 112 of viliage Gandarpur. 4. Standing Counsel argues that the surplus is 0.244 acre as arrived at by the Competent Authority. 5. Shri Mukherjee argues that appellant has got the choice to retain plots and he prefers to surrender the roads. He will work out his remedy in Civil Court for easement right over these roads. 6. Roads are essential for the use of buildings. It is land like this which is covered under "appurtenant and additional appurtenant land." It will be travesty of the law if roads are surrendered as surplus instead of being a part of the appurtenant land and thereafter easement right is claimed over the road which vest in Government. 7. I do not, therefore, agree with the appellant that he has such a choice of action that what is really appurtenant land is surrendered as surplus to be claimed thereafter in Civil Court under easement right is necessary for enjoyment of his property. I would, therefore, accept the decision of the Competent Authority and reject the appeal. 8. Appeal rejected. Final Result : Dismissed