JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to the Act. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows- 2. Sardari Lal Oberoi, respondent no. 1 filed a Statement under Section 6 of the Act alleging therein that the family is a joint Hindu family which also consists of two sons, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Amresh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar and Amresh Kumar filed separate statements under Section 6(1) of the Act. 3. So far as Rakesh Kumar and Amresh Kumar are concerned, it is not disputed that the competent authority has held that they do not have any surplus land and as such the land in their possession is not the subject matter of the present dispute. 4. The present dispute relates only to the land belonging to Sardari Lal Oberoi. Sardari Lal Oberoi possesses land of four places, two properties in Dehradun namely. 1-C, Tyagi Road, Dehradun and 2A, Race Course, Dehradun. The third property is in the suburb of Dehradun, namely village Adhoiwala. In the land of this village he has half share, The fourth property is situate in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi is 1860 square metres. Sardari Lal Oberoi has half share and consequently he owns 930 square metres along with a built up area of 46.40 square metres. 5. The fact that Sardari Lal Oberoi possesses the above properties is not disputed either by the State of U.P. or by the respondents. The competent authority under the Act by an order dated 7th July, 1981 declared an area of 1627.20 square metres as excess vacant land in the hands of Sardari Lal Oberoi accordingly filed an appeal before the District Judge Dehradun under Section 3 of the Act. This appeal was allowed by the District Judge by an order dated 10th December, 1982 by virtue of which the order of the competent authority was set aside and it was declared that Sardari Lal Oberoi does not possess any excess vacant land. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge dated 10-12-1982, the present petition has been filed in this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge dated 10-12-1982, the present petition has been filed in this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned Standing counsel has contended that the District Judge has erred in law in holding that there was no excess vacant land in the hands of Sardari Lal Oberoi and in fact, 1627.20 square metres should be declared as excess vacant land. 9. At the outset it may be pointed out that so far as the judgment of the competent authority is concerned, the State of U.P. did not challenge this judgment in appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was filed only by Sardari Lal Oberoi. The competent authority after examining the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the property 1-C Tyagi Road, Dehradun was a commercial property and as such it did not come under the purview of the Act. It further held so far as 2-A Race Course, Dehradun is concerned, in this also there is no vacant land considering the fact that there are many dwelling units in that property. In regard to the land situate in village Adhoiwala the competent authority was of the view that this land was agricultural and commercial and as such the Act would not apply to this land also. Consequently, the only dispute remains in regard to the land situate in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. 10. In the land situate in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi it is admitted that there is a residential unit on an area of 46.40 square metres situate in the said plot. Under Section 2(g) (ii) of the Act, since there is a dwelling unit, Sardari Lal Oberoi is entitled to 500 square metres as land appurtenant contiguous to the land occupied by such building and since it is a dwelling unit an additional extent of 500 Square metres. The total area to which Sardari Lal Oberoi would consequently be entitled in Punjabi Bagh at Delhi would be 46.40 + 500 + 500 square metres. The total of these three figures comes to 1046.40 square metres. Admittedly the area belonging to Sardari Lal Oberoi in Punjabi Bagh is only 930 square metres. The total area to which Sardari Lal Oberoi would consequently be entitled in Punjabi Bagh at Delhi would be 46.40 + 500 + 500 square metres. The total of these three figures comes to 1046.40 square metres. Admittedly the area belonging to Sardari Lal Oberoi in Punjabi Bagh is only 930 square metres. Since 930 square metres is less than 1046.40 square metres there is no excess land in the hands of Sardari Lal Oberoi and as such it cannot be said that the view taken by the District Judge, Dehradun is in any manner erroneous in law. 11. Learned Standing counsel has urged that since Sardari Lal Oberoi has properties in Dehradun as well as in Delhi, then under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act the calculation has to be made multiplying the land at Delhi which comes within the category 'A' by four times as the land at Dehradun comes under the category 'D' and it is then only that the calculation of appurtenant land should be made for the purposes of exemption under the Ceiling Act. In my opinion, this submission is misconceived. On a reading of various provisions of the Act, it is apparent that the vacant land is to be determined in each urban agglomeration falling in any particular category giving appurtenant land as provided under Section 2 (g) of Act. If the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is accepted the result would be that if a person holds land in two urban agglomerations then he will be deprived of his right to claim land appurtenant to the extent mentioned in the definition of the word 'land appurtenant' used in Section 2(g) of the Act is very clear in terms. A person is entitled to land appurtenant in respect of dwelling unit to the extent mentioned in Section 2 (g) of the Act whether the property is situate in urban agglomeration falling within category A or B or C or D. In the circumstances, as I have held above, since Punjabi Bagh, Delhi was in category A, the extent of the land mentioned in Section 2 (g) of the Act as appurtenant land is liable to be excluded for the purposes of determinating the excess vacant land. 12. 12. Section 4(2) of the Act clearly provides that where any person holds vacant land situate in two or more categories of urban agglomeration, then the parliament contemplated that the land situate in different urban agglomeration shall be multiplied to bring equality between the persons where land comes under the purview of the Act. To illustrate my opinion, for instance, if there was a vacant land in urban agglomeration falling within category A and there was also a vacant land in urban agglomeration falling within category D, then if the excess land is sought to be taken from urban agglomeration category D in lieu of the vacant land situate in category A then the area of the land which was declared vacant in category A would be multiplied by four. This provision only applies when there are vacant lands in two or more agglomerations. As in the present case it was found that there was no excess vacant land at Dehradun which comes within the category D, the question of applicability of sub-clause (2) of Section 4 of the Act does not arise at all. Sub-clause (2) of Section 4 of the Act only applies when there are vacant lands in two categories of urban agglomerations as mentioned in sub-clause (1). 13. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that this petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.