ORDER : Heard Mr. Ghosh for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents and the statements made in the writ application have not been controverted by the respondents in any way, either by filing any affidavit-in-opposition or by production of records, and as such the same remain uncontroverted. 2. The petitioners case as made out in the writ application inter alia is, that by a registered Deed of Conveyance, dated 19th September, 1960, the petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner no. 1, purchased .067 dicimals equivalent to about 272.50 Sq metres of bastu land together with one storyed brick-built structure, hereditaments, outhouse, privies etc., being known as 'Lal-Kuthir' or' Lal-Kutir' and being holding no 116/110 in Ward No. III within the Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality; the petitioners also being members of the Balaka Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Were allotted a flat on the 7th floor of the multi-storied building named as "Balaka" at premises no 68 B. Ballygunge Circular Road in the year 1976, containing an area of 163 43 Sq. metres and the petitioner No. 2 further purchased a small plot of land measuring about 342.93 Sq. metres being premises No. 235/B/2. Netaji Subhas Chandra Road, P.S. Tollygunge together with the right of ownership with others over a common passage measuring about 34.71 Sq. meters leading to the said plot by or under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 29th July, 1966, and the petitioner, family never held or possessed any excess vacant land within the meaning of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. On or about 29th January, 1979, the petitioners, however, submitted a return under s. 6(1) of the aforesaid Act, containing the particulars of the aforesaid properties, before the competent authority, under certain wrong advice and also being ignorant of the legal position, since the petitioners were not required to submit any such statement as they did not hold any excess vacant land under the said Act. Thereafter in December, 1978. the petitioners gave notice and made an application under s. 26 of the aforesaid Act before the competent authority for permission for sale of the aforesaid vacant plot of land together with the right over the above common passage in premises No. 235/B/2, Netaji Subhas Road but the competent authority, however, by his letter dated 28th November. 1979 (Annexure 'A') informed the petitioners about the rejection of their said application. 1979 (Annexure 'A') informed the petitioners about the rejection of their said application. Thereafter, by a Notice dated 10th January, 1981 (Annexure 'B'). the petitioner no.2 was forwarded a draft statement under s. 8 (1) of the aforesaid Act and was called upon to submit her objection within 30 days from the service thereof. Against the said notice and draft statement, the petitioners duly submitted their written objection under s. 8(2) of the said Act stating, inter alia, that the said notice (Annexure-'B') was not maintainable in law as the petitioners did not possess more than 500 sq meters of vacant land and that 55 66 square metres of land that was available to the petitioners in their undivided 1/30th share in the multi-storied building 'Balaka' at premises no. 68-B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta in respect of the flat on the 7th floor thereof, could not be termed as vacant land. By the order dated 28th September, 1981 (Annexure-'D'), the competent authority Calcutta, however, upheld the draft statement under s. 8(1) of the aforesaid Act and made a direction for preparation of 9nal statement under s. 9 of the said Act, and against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Appeal Case no. 96 of 1981. During the pendency of the said appeal, the final statement under s.9 of the said Act was forwarded to the petitioners by the competent authority (Annexure-'E'). and subsequently, by the judgment dated 31st March, 1982, the respondent no. 2, namely, the appellate authority, also dismissed the aforesaid appeal of the petitioners (Annexure-'F'). In this Rule, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 28th September, 1981 (Annexure 'D') and also' the order of the appellate authority dated 31st March, 1982 (Annexure 'F'). 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, that the total area of all the three properties held by the petitioners including the covered areas, vacant space And the common passage as referred to above would be only about 705.74 Sq. meters as per the following calculations: 1) Holding no. 116/110 in Mahalla Pratappur and Ward no. III within the Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality- (i) Covered Area 237.50 sq. metres (ii) Side space required to be kept vacant under the Municipal law for the buildings 35.00 sq. metres Total area 272.50 sq. meters as per the following calculations: 1) Holding no. 116/110 in Mahalla Pratappur and Ward no. III within the Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality- (i) Covered Area 237.50 sq. metres (ii) Side space required to be kept vacant under the Municipal law for the buildings 35.00 sq. metres Total area 272.50 sq. " 2) The flat on the 7th Floor in the building 'Balaka' at Premises no. 68-B, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta) i) Area available in proportion to the area of the flat 55.60 sq. metres 3) Vacant land in premises no. 235/8/2, Netaji Subhas Road; P.S. Toliygunge, Calcutta) i) Total land comprised in the premises 342.93 sq. metres ii) Common passage as land appurtenant 34.71 sq. metres Total area 371.64 sq. metres 4. According to Mr. Ghosh, therefore, the total land of the petitioners, over which there is no construction or structure, would be 35.00 sq. meters kept for the side space for the Hooghly dwelling unit being item no. (1) as aforesaid, and 377.67 sq. meters being the Tollygunge unit as item no. (3) as aforesaid, the sum total being 412.64 sq. meters, which would thus be less than 500 sq. meters of vacant land as allowed to be retained by a person under the provisions of s. 4 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Ghosh. however, contends that the 35.00 sq. meters of land kept as side space for the Hooghly Dwelling unit as aforesaid, has to be kept vacant as per the Building Regulation of the Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality, and as such, the said area of 35.00 sq. meters cannot be called as vacant land because of the provisions of s. 2(q)(i) of the said Act, but should be treated as land appurtenant to the building standing on the land in item no. (1) as aforesaid as per the provisions of s. 2(q)(i) of the said Act. 5. In support of his contention regarding determination of vacant land, Mr. Ghosh has referred to two Supreme Court decisions, one in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. L.J. Johnson & others in (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 110 wherein it has been held inter alia by the Supreme Court that the language of a beneficial statute like the Urban Land (Ceiling and Registrations) Act, 1976 must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and advance its object. vs. L.J. Johnson & others in (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 110 wherein it has been held inter alia by the Supreme Court that the language of a beneficial statute like the Urban Land (Ceiling and Registrations) Act, 1976 must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and advance its object. So construed and reading s. 4(9) in conjunction with s. 2(q)(ii) and (iii), it can be inferred that the total area of the land of a person has first to be determined and if that area, built or un built, falls below the ceiling limit prescribed under s. 4(1), there would be no question of any excess vacant land, but in case of land on a part of which there is a building and a dwelling unit and the rest of which is vacant, the area beneath the building and the dwelling unit would have to be excluded while computing the ceiling. Further, if there are any bye laws requiring a portion of the land to be kept vacant, the land-bolder would be allowed to set apart the said land to the maximum extent of 500 sq meter. He would also be allowed to retain an additional area of 500 sq. metres for the beneficial use of the building so that he may enjoy the use of a little compound also for various purposes. After excluding these items if the land falls below the ceiling limit, there would be no question of excess, but if there is excess, that is beyond the ceiling limit, the same would have to be taken over by the Government. Moreover, the expression 'land appurtenant' as defined in s. 2(g) and used in s. 4(9) means not a land contiguous to some other land but the very land which is a part of the same plot or area which contains the building or dwelling house. This also is the object of s. 4(9). The word 'thereto' in s. 4(9) refers to the land on which the building or the dwelling unit stands. This also is the object of s. 4(9). The word 'thereto' in s. 4(9) refers to the land on which the building or the dwelling unit stands. The argument that once a plot contains a building, the whole of the plot would be exempt from the ceiling area cannot be countenanced on a plain interpretation of s. 2(q)(ii) read with s. 4(9) Nor can it be said that intention of the legislature was to take over the entire open land without giving any benefit of appurtenant land to the landholder for that would be of a confiscatory nature and would fall beyond the permissible limits of the Directive Principles. So far as the other decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors, vs. Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel & ors. ( AIR 1988 SC 220 ) is concerned, it has been held inter alia, therein by the Supreme Court that in order to exclude land from the definition of 'vacant land' it should be shown that it was land on which construction of a building was not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land was situated. According to Mr. Ghosh, therefore, as per the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court the land that had to be kept vacant under the building Regulations of the Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality, so far as the Hooghly property being item no. (I) above is concerned, the said land cannot be held to be vacant land inasmuch as, such land had to be kept vacant as per the said Building Regulations for the building standing on the said holding. 6. Regarding the flat in the Balaka Housing Estate in item no. (2) as mentioned above, Mr. Ghosh's contention is that since the flat possessed and enjoyed by the petitioners, is really owned by a Co-operative Society, which has been allotted to the petitioners, it cannot be said that the 'petitioners are holding 'any vacant land in the said premises and as such, area of such flat cannot be added to the other land or- lands held by the petitioners under s. 4(9) of the said Act to determine their ceiling land under the said Act and he refers to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of B.B. Billimoria v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 2 Bom. CR 618. 7. CR 618. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find there is much substance in the contentions raised by Mr. Ghosh for the petitioner Where a person has several plots, some completely vacant and some partly built and partly vacant, the competent authority will have to total the entire area of the lands in various places, completely vacant or partly built and partly vacant and permit the landholder to retain an area as provided in clauses (a) to (d) of s. 4(1). The mode of computation to find the surplus land should be first, to exclude the built area and then to exclude the deductions allowed or allowable under s. 2(g). Moreover, there is no inconsistency between Ss. 2(g)(i), 2(q)(i) and (ii) and s. 4(9) of the said Act. Secondly, regarding a flat held by a person in a building owned by a Cooperative Society as a member of such Society, such person does not hold vacant land but merely a flat allotted to him by such society. The tenant member or the member of such society has at the maximum, a right to occupy the flat which is allotted to him. No land is allotted to him by such society in the building The land of the building is held by the society as a whole as a juridical person, and s. 4(8) of the said Act is not attracted in such a case and as such, the question of adding the area of the flat with other land under s. 4(9) of the said Act also does not arise. The flat being held under a Co-operative Society, the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the said Act also will not apply. 8. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of Mr. Ghosh, I hold for the reasons as stated above, that the petitioners do not hold any excess vacant lord under the aforesaid Act and as such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are quashed and no portion of the petitioners' total land as mentioned in the above three properties can be declared and taken possession of as excess vacant land of the petitioners by any authority under the said Act. 9. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute and without, however, any order as to costs. 9. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute and without, however, any order as to costs. Let a declaration and also a writ in the nature of mandamus do issue in terms of prayers (a) and (b) to the writ application. Rule made absolute; impugned order quashed.