JUDGMENT K. N. Goyal, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for declaration of surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. The respondent Mrs. Rakesh Murthy holds a Bungalow No. 31, Butlerganj, Lucknow. On a notice being issued to her under the said Act she filed an objection in which a plea was taken that she was merely a licensee and not an owner and as such there was no question of any surplus land being "held'' by her. On facts also it was pleaded that the area of the land mentioned in the notice was not correct and further that there were three dwelling units and not one on the land. Ultimately the competent authority found that the correct area was 8290 sq. metres out of which she was entitled to the benefit of 6545 and odd sq. metres, and declared 1745 and odd sq. mts. as excess vacant land. Against this declaration the respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. In the memorandum of appeal, which is Annexure No. C-1 to the counter affidavit, again the same legal pleas were taken and it was urged that nothing should have been declared as surplus land. When the appeal came up for hearing before the learned District Judge the only point pressed was that the competent authority had wrongly allowed the benefit of only two servants' quarters whereas actually there was 11 servants' quarters and for each of them the respondent was entitled to have 500 sq. metres as additional appurtenant land. This plea was not specifically taken in the ground of appeal but was nevertheless entertained by the learned District Judge who thereupon issued a commission to an Advocate. The Advocate-commissioner gave a report on 4-1-1982 in which he said that there were five servants quarters. Against this report the respondent filed an objection and thereupon the Advocate-commissioner was sent again and this time he stated that actually there were seven servants' quarters. This was accepted by the learned District Judge and accordingly the appeal was allowed and it was held that there was no surplus land at ail. Aggrieved by this decision the State has filed this writ petition. 3. The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble S. S. Ahmad, J.). This was accepted by the learned District Judge and accordingly the appeal was allowed and it was held that there was no surplus land at ail. Aggrieved by this decision the State has filed this writ petition. 3. The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble S. S. Ahmad, J.). The question on which the learned Single Judge was addressed was whether "appurtenant land" is to be separately allowed for servants quarters? On behalf of the respondent reliance was placed on State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1978 AWC 731 in which it was observed, inter alia, as follows :- "............Even if the dwelling unit is in the nature of a servant quarter or out-houses, land appurtenant to it shall have to be left apart from the land appurtenant to the main building." On behalf of the State it was pointed out that the said decision in Johnson's case has been reversed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1983 AWC 798. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the question whether the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Johnson's case stands completely overruled by the Supreme Court decision or not requires the attention of another Division Bench. It was in these circumstances that this case has been referred to a Division Bench and has come up before us. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Standing counsel Sri H. N. Tilhari has pointed out that the respondent herself in her objection had never raised the plea that there were several servants' quarters. All that was said in her objection was that there were three dwelling units. The competent authority itself allowed appurtenant land for the main building as well as for a Guest House as well as for two servants' quarters, i. e. 4 dwelling units including the main building. This was itself more than what was claimed in the respondent's objection in which only three dwelling units were mentioned. In the memorandum of appeal nothing was said about the number of dwelling units or of servant's quarters. This was itself more than what was claimed in the respondent's objection in which only three dwelling units were mentioned. In the memorandum of appeal nothing was said about the number of dwelling units or of servant's quarters. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent Sri V. B. Upadhya has pointed out that it was not urged on behalf of the State before the District Judge that a commission need not, in view of the pleadings, be issued for ascertaining the number of servants' quarters. No objection was raised on behalf of the State against the commissioner's report. 5. It is obvious that the conduct of the case on behalf of both the parties before the competent authority and before the appellate authority was far from satisfactory. This is, however, not a civil suit and we do not think it proper to rest the decision in a matter like this on the basis of technicalities as raised before us on both sides. We are dealing with a legislation designed to ensure social justice in pursuance of the directive principles laid down in Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. From the point of view of the individual land-owner it is an ex-proprietory legislation, while from the point of view of the general public it is a legislation meant to help the weaker sections. We have, therefore, to strike a golden mean and to see that nothing more is taken away from the individual citizen than is really required to be taken away and also that nothing less is taken away from him for re-distribution etc., than is required to be taken away. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it will not be proper to bind down either party to its pleadings or to its failure to raise objections in proper forum or at the appropriate stage as urged before us. The factual position is really far from clear. Even if the objection claimed less than she could have objected then she need not be denied the benefit of the law, nor the State be bound down to Its failure to raise objections against the commissioner's report or the appointment of the commissioner. 6. The factual position is not very clear before us. Even if the objection claimed less than she could have objected then she need not be denied the benefit of the law, nor the State be bound down to Its failure to raise objections against the commissioner's report or the appointment of the commissioner. 6. The factual position is not very clear before us. It seems that the Commissioner and the learned District Judge have treated even the quarters situated in one ' building block ' as separate quarters on the ground that different servants or different persons were living therein. We are not to consider how many families are actually living in a building. Even in the main building there may be more than one families living, but it would not follow that appurtenant land is separately to be allowed for each such residential unit. Likewise, assuming that appurtenant land is to be allowed for servants' quarters, then the number of servants living in one building would be immaterial. What is to be seen is the number of independant buildings detached from the main buildings. On the question whether any allowance has to be made at all for servants' quarters the learned Division Bench in Johnson' case, (supra), did make an observation, as quoted above, although the said observation was made without any discussion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment on appeal has not dealt with the extent or otherwise of the servants' quarters or with the question whether any separate allowance is to be given or not for servants' quarters. It is, therefore, open to us to decide the matter untrammelled by authority. 7. Section 36 (1) of the Act lays down that " the Central Government may give such directions to any State Government as may appear to the Central Government to be necessary for carrying into execution in the State any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder". In pursuance of this power the Central Government has in fact issued various guide-lines. The guide-lines have been issued in order to ensure uniformity in implementation of the provisions of the Act. Amongst the guide-lines issued one is as follows :- "(8) Section 2 (g) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976- Land appurtenant for servant quarters/out-houses. 1. In pursuance of this power the Central Government has in fact issued various guide-lines. The guide-lines have been issued in order to ensure uniformity in implementation of the provisions of the Act. Amongst the guide-lines issued one is as follows :- "(8) Section 2 (g) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976- Land appurtenant for servant quarters/out-houses. 1. Inquiries are being made as to whether a servant's quarter or an out-house situated separately in another building or buildings in the same plot of land where the main residential building is situate is entitled to separate land appurtenant in accordance with section 2 (g) of the Act. 2. The matter has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Law (Department of Legal Affairs). It will be seen that as per provisions contained in section 2 (g) of the Act, any building constructed before the appointed day with a dwelling unit therein is entitled to an additional extent of 500 sq. meters of land. Therefore, any building constructed before the appointed day which contains a dwelling unit (or more dwelling units) whether it is in the nature of a servant quarter or out-house even if it is situated in the same plot of land as the main building, is entitled to the additional extent of 500 sq. meters of land. If there are more buildings constructed before the appointed day, each building containing a dwelling unit (or more dwelling units), then every such building is entitled to the Additional extent of 500 sq. meters of land. If a building contains more than one dwelling unit, then it is entitled only to the additional extent of 500 sq. meters of contiguous land. If the building is situated in the same plot of land as the main building, but if it does not contain a dwelling unit (as for instance a garage), then it is not entitled to the additional extent of 500 sq. meters of land. 3. The above clarification may kindly be noted by State Governments for guidance. (G. I. M. of W. and H. Circular Letter No. 1/132/76-UCU (vii), dated 12-1-77)". (Emphasis supplied) 8. It would appear from the above that the Central Government has taken the view that separate allowance has to be made under section 2 (g) of the Act for servants quarters and out-houses. (G. I. M. of W. and H. Circular Letter No. 1/132/76-UCU (vii), dated 12-1-77)". (Emphasis supplied) 8. It would appear from the above that the Central Government has taken the view that separate allowance has to be made under section 2 (g) of the Act for servants quarters and out-houses. According to this guideline also, the number of dwelling units in a building is irrelevant. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that these guide-lines do not have statutory force. Apparently, the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. We are of the opinion that these guide-lines can be related to Section 36 of the Act and as such if they go in favour of the citizen it will not be open to the authorities to ignore the same. A citizen can take advantage of the guidelines issued under section 36, though the State Government may not in case a citizen questions the same on the ground that the guide-lines are contrary to the provisions of the Act. 9. Under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act also, circulars are issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, (1971) Vol. 82 ITR 913 SC that the assessee can take advantage of the circulars which will be binding on the authorities. We are of the opinion that the same principle should apply to guide-lines issued under section 36 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 10. Accordingly the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of appurtenant land for a servants quarters. However, as noted earlier, the factual position about the number of buildings comprising servants quarters is not clear. It is, therefore, necessary to remand the matter back to the learned District Judge. What will have to be seen is the number of buildings and not the number of independent dwelling units. Even one building may have separate independent dwelling units. What is required to ascertain is only the number of independent buildings. For this purpose even the building plans that must have been submitted by the respondent to the sanctioning authority may have also be looked into, and the various maps prepared by the Commissioner will have to be examined minutely from this point of view. What is required to ascertain is only the number of independent buildings. For this purpose even the building plans that must have been submitted by the respondent to the sanctioning authority may have also be looked into, and the various maps prepared by the Commissioner will have to be examined minutely from this point of view. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed in part and the order of the learned District Judge dated 16-6-1982 (Annexure No. 1) is hereby quashed. The case shall go back to the learned District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law as interpreted hereinabove. No order is made for costs. --- Petition partly allowed.