M.C. JAIN, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 10th March 1987 passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Urban Development & Housing Department u/s 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short the Act). 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a statement or return as envisaged u/s 6 (1) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulations Rules, 1976 on 6th Oct. 1976, Thereafter, survey was conducted under the orders of respondent No. 4 Competent Authority and ultimately the Competent Authority passed the order Ex. 4 dated 9.6.82. The Competent Authority determined the total ceiling area. There are two covered tanks in the petitioners house known as Rainbow House, Paota, Mandore Road comprised of 4961 square metres including constructed area and open land. 3. The controversy in the present writ petition is very limited in respect of the two tanks. The Competent Officer allowed 500 square metres as land, appurtenant to one tank and 200 sq. metres as land appurtenant to another tank. The covered area of the first tank is 20.9 per square meters and of the other tank, the covered area is 11.40 per square metres. Both the tanks are separate and away from the main building. No appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. However, the Govt. in exercise of the revisional powers, set aside the order of the Competent Authority and remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority. It was observed in the impugned order Ex. 7 that there is no provision for giving land as land appurtenant to water tanks and Competent Officer has erred in allowing the land as land appurtenant to water tanks treating them as constructed portions. In this view of the matter, the order of the Competent Authority was set aside and he was directed to redetermine the extent of the land appurtenant allowed to very small constructed portion which should not be treated as separate units but as part of the main building. 4. Thus, the question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner can claim land measuring 500 sq. metres and 200 sq. metres as land appurtenant to the two tanks. 5. The expression land appurtenant" has been defined in sec. 4. Thus, the question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner can claim land measuring 500 sq. metres and 200 sq. metres as land appurtenant to the two tanks. 5. The expression land appurtenant" has been defined in sec. 2(g) of the Act which reads as under— "land appurtenant", in relation to any building, means in an area where there are building regulations, the minimum extent of land required under such regulations to be kept as open space for the enjoyment of such building, which in no case shall exceed five hundred square metres; or (ii) in an area where there no building regulations an extent of five hundred square metres contiguous to the land occupied by such building; and includes, in the case of any building constructed before the appointed day with a dwelling unit therein, an additional extent not exceeding five hundred square metres of land, if any, contiguous to the minimum extent referred to in sub clause (1) or the extent referred to in sub clause (ii) as the case may be." 6. The expression dwelling unit has also been defined in Sec. 2 (c) which reads as under:- "dwelling unit in relation to a building or a portion of a building means a unit of accommodation, in such building or portion used solely for the purpose of residence." 7. It may be stated that the expression buildings as such has not been defined; but a dwelling unit in relation to a building or a portion of building may be a unit of accommodation in such building or portion used solely for the purpose of residence and there can be dwelling unit in a building or a portion of building. In the definition of expression land appurtenant, it would appear that in clause (i) of Sec. 2 (g) if there are building regulations, the minimum extent of land required under such regulations to be kept as open space for the enjoyment of such building, would be considered to be land appurtenant but a limit is placed in this definition. It must not exceed 500 sq. metres. It must not exceed 500 sq. metres. It is not in dispute that so far as the present case is concerned the petitioner has been allowed only 500 square metres as land appurtenant to one tank and 200 square metres as land appurtenant to another tank and this is because this was the only open land available in the compound of the house. 8. The whole question, therefore, is as to whether the two tanks can be considered as building and on that basis......... 9. The question still remains as to whether the tank is a building. As already stated, the expression building has not been defined. So we will have to look to the dictionary meaning of the expression building. 10. In Chambers 20th Century Dictionary the word building means, anything built, the area of erecting houses. In Websters Third New International Dictionary, the word building means a thing built, a constructed edifice designed to stand to more or less permanently, covering a space of land, usually covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls and serving as a dwelling, store house, factory, shelter for animals or other useful structure distinguished from structures not designed for occupancy (as fences or monuments) and from structures not intended for use in one place (as boats or trailers) even though subject to occupancy. 11. In Law Lexicon Vol. I with regard to the expression building. it is stated as under:- "The word "building has not to be defined in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and must be construed in its ordinary grammatical sense unless there is something in the contest or object of the statutes show that it is used in a special sense different from its ordinary grammatical sense. "From this definition it does not appear that the existence of a roof is always necessary for a structure to be regarded as a building. Residential buildings ordinarily have roofs but there can be a non-residential building for which a roof is not necessary. A large stadium or an open air swimming pool constructed at a considerable expense would be a building as it is a permanent structure and designed for a useful purpose. Residential buildings ordinarily have roofs but there can be a non-residential building for which a roof is not necessary. A large stadium or an open air swimming pool constructed at a considerable expense would be a building as it is a permanent structure and designed for a useful purpose. The question as to what is "building" u/s 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must always be a question of degree, a question depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. "Building has two distinct connotations. According to one a "building" is usually understood a structure of considerable size, and intended to be permanent or at last to endure for a considerable time According to another "building" will mean and include an art of a building let or to be let separately." 12. Having regard to the above meaning of the word building, it would appear that the expression building is not confined to a dwelling house but the expression needs to be given an extended meaning to include all constructions of a permanent nature or character not boundary walls and fences. If the legislature had intended that such structures in the form of tanks etc. are not to be considered building; the matter would have been specifically specified in that form while enacting the defining provision. In the definition of the expression land appurtenant, there is a simple use of the word building. In our opinion the word building is a word of wider connotation so as to include anything build, any structure erected which may be of permanent nature except canal, walls, fences etc. In this light in our opinion, the two tanks in the present case would fall within the expression building and the petitioner can claims 500sq. metres of land as land appurtenant to each tank. In the light of the above consideration, in our opinion, the view taken by the Dy. Secretary to the Government in Ex.7 cannot be sustained as the same does not appear to be correct. 13. The learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that the case was remanded at the instance of counsel for the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary. It may be so but that is no ground to deny the petitioner his right to present the writ petition on the ground of erroneous view of law. 13. The learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that the case was remanded at the instance of counsel for the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary. It may be so but that is no ground to deny the petitioner his right to present the writ petition on the ground of erroneous view of law. Any concession in the matter of law would not in any way affect the petitioners right. Therefore, the submission of the learned Deputy Government Advocate has no substance. 14. No other point has been pressed before us. 15. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Urban Development, and Housing Development Ex.7 dated 10.3.87 is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the order of the Competent Officer stands restored.