JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J.- These are two connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The property in question was jointly owned by Major General R.S. Bakshi and Wing Commander R.L. Bakshi. These two separate petitioners have been filed by these joint owners. 3. The competent authority by an order dated 18th November, 1981 declared certain land as surplus. Against the said order, two appeals were filed ; one by Major General R.S. Bakshi and the other by Wing Commander R.L. Bakshi. Both the appeals were allowed by a common judgment dated 15th December, 1982. The District Judge declared that there was no excess land in the hands of either Major General R.S. Bakshi or Wing Commander R.L. Bakshi. The State of Uttar Pradesh has now challenged the order dated 15th December 1982. Writ petition No. 3600 of 1983 relates to Major General R.S. Bakshi and writ petition No. 3625 of 1983 relates to Wing Commander R.L. Bakshi. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that the appellate court has decided the appeals on the basis that the constructed area has to be exempted. The submission of the learned standing counsel is that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the constructed area has not to be exempted and, as, such the order of the District Judge is manifestly erroneous. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however further urged that, in any case, the respondents owners of the land are entitled to separate appurtenant land in respect of each dwelling unit. The learned standing counsel in support of his contention has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. L.J. Johnson, AIR 1983 SC 1303 . This fully supports the contention of the learned Standing Counsel. In the circumstances, it is clear that the constructed area has not to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the excess land. The judgment of the learned District Judge, consequently, is manifestly erroneous. 6. This fully supports the contention of the learned Standing Counsel. In the circumstances, it is clear that the constructed area has not to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the excess land. The judgment of the learned District Judge, consequently, is manifestly erroneous. 6. In regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents since the appeals have to be re-heard by the District Judge in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, it would be open to the respondents to urge this question before the appellate court. The respondents are further permitted to urge any other question which they are entitled to raise. 7. In the result, both the petitions are allowed. The order dated 15th December, 1982, passed by the District Judge, is set aside and the cases are remanded to the District Judge, Dehradun, for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.