JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Tribunal at Allahabad. appointed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 33 of the Act partly and reduced the surplus area of the land of the petitioner from 38075-05 sq. metres of land to 29443-15 sq. metres. 2. It appears that under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, a draft statement was served upon the petitioner proposing to acquire 29575.05 sq. metres of land. The Competent Authority allowed 1500 sq. metres as vacant land and declared rest of it to be the surplus. In the appeal, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption of certain more aces. Hence, it allowed the appeal partly. In the writ petition preferred against the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner has taken a number of points. 3. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that the Tribunal committed an error in treating even agricultural land as urban and in including the same also while computing the surplus area with him. The submission made is untenable. The petitioner admittedly is residing in the area covered by the Master Plan prepared for Allahabad. In the Master Plan use of the land given is not agricultural. Accordingly, the land of the petitioner which might have even been agricultural before the enforcement of the Act, would not be treated as agricultural. Section 2 (C) has defined 'urban land'. Laying emphasis on Section 2 (o) (ii), the learned counsel urged that as the land which is clearly used for the purpose of agriculture has been included, the Tribunal committed an error in including it. Clause (C) of the aforesaid definition which is material for our purposes is as under :- "(C) notwithstanding any thing contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture." 4. This would show that if the land has been specified in the Master Plan for the purpose other than agriculture, in that event it would be treated as such. This would show that if the land has been specified in the Master Plan for the purpose other than agriculture, in that event it would be treated as such. Next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was as the Master Plan prepared in the instant case did not take into account the necessary circumstances, was illegal and its correctness could be challenged in the proceedings under the present Act. 5. Section 2 (h) defines "Master Plan." The definition is as under :- "(h) "master plan", in relation to an area within an urban agglomeration or any part thereof, means the plan (by whatever name called) prepared under any law for the time being in force or in pursuance of an order made by the State Government for the development of such area or part thereof and providing for the stages by which such development shall be carried out." 6. In Uttar Pradesh, there are two major Acts which provide for Master Plan. These Acts are ;- (i) The U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, and (ii) The U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The first Act was enacted to prevent haphazard development. Under Section 5-A, the State Government has been empowered to get a Master Plan prepared through the Controlling Authority or through such other agency as it thinks fit. The Act lays down a detailed scheme about the manner in which Master Plan would be prepared. A person aggrieved on the drafit being published is also entitled to file an objection to the proposed Master Plan. After it is finalised and receives sanction, it becomes final. Its correctness cannot be challenged in any proceedings. 7. So far as the second Act is concerned, Section 8 (1) of the Act provides that the Authority shall, as soon as may be, prepare a master plan for the development of the area. Under this Act also, objections can be filed under Section 11 and suggestions and representations can be given to the draft plan. The Authority is required to consider these objections and, thereafter, to prepare a final plan and then submit the same to the State Government for sanction. Under this Act also, the plan being sanctioned, it becomes final and cannot be challenged in a court of law. 8. Preparation of a Master Plan under both the Acts is a highly technical matter. Under this Act also, the plan being sanctioned, it becomes final and cannot be challenged in a court of law. 8. Preparation of a Master Plan under both the Acts is a highly technical matter. A number of agencies are involved for preparing a Master Plan. A final shape is given to a Master Plan after disposal of the objections and suggestions given against the draft plan. The plan is prepared by the Experts on the subject. A Court of law under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has not been empowered to go behind the Master Plan and to apply its own mind to the land uses given in the same. It has no power to hold a plan prepared under it to be unrealistic. A Court dealing in a proceeding under the Act is bound to accept the Master Plan as it is. When there is a Master Plan, the Act extends to all lands situated within the local limits of the municipality or a local authority and also covers the peripheral area thereof, but where there is no Master Plan, its applicability is confined to the municipal limit or the notified area, as the case may be. I therefore, do not find substance in the submission of the petitioner's learned counsel that the validity, legality or propriety or correctness of the Master Plan is open to challenge. A Competent Authority has been created by the Act. He has only those powers which have been conferred on him. No provision of the Act entitles him to go behind the Master Plan. The Tribunal sits in appeal over an order of the - Competent Authority only to judge as to what has been decided is right or wrong. Its powers also are the same as that of the Competent Authority. 9. The second argument made before me by the learned counsel was about house no. 104/1. Counsel urged that the Tribunal had committed an error in including its area of 114.04 sq. metres for calculating the surplus land with the petitioner. There is nothing in the judgment of the Tribunal which could indicate that the petitioner had advanced before him the argument that the total area of the aforesaid house was covered by construction. The allegations made with respect to this house are contained in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. metres for calculating the surplus land with the petitioner. There is nothing in the judgment of the Tribunal which could indicate that the petitioner had advanced before him the argument that the total area of the aforesaid house was covered by construction. The allegations made with respect to this house are contained in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. In paragraph 9 of the counter, the allegation of the petitioner that an argument was made with respect to this house before the District Judge has been denied. The Competent Authority appears to have considered the objections and documents on the record and passed an order which does not suffer from any infirmity. The point raised before the High Court is one of fact. Further more, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. L. J. Johnson, 1983 AWC 798 the entire area covered by construction is also to be taken into account while calculating the total area in possession of a person. This argument, therefore, would ultimately be not of any help. 10. Arguing with respect to plot no. 22 of village Chak Niratul, the learned counsel contended that the aforesaid plot should not have been treated as the petitioner's land at all in as much as that plot did not belong to him after the execution of the sale deed before 1973 in favour of Smt. Saraswati Chaddha, The land of this plot had been treated to be that of the petitioner by the Competent Authority. There is nothing in the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner indicating that the correctness of this finding had been challenged before the District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked whether the petitioner had claimed any right on the basis of the sale deed alleged to have been executed in 1973 before the District Judge had no answer to give. In other words, he admitted that the controversy had not been raised by the petitioner before the appellate court. That being so, this Court is unable to go into this controversy. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged. Petition dismissed.