JUDGMENT In this petition under Article 226 by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, declaring the land as 'vacant' is being impugned. The petition arises out of the following facts. The land belonging to the petitioner/(s) has been declared as 'vacant' land. This has been done by taking notice of a Master Plan. This Master Plan came into existence after the 'appointed day'. It is on this basis, an argument has been raised that the nature of the land is to be seen on the 'appointed day' and in case the Master Plan has come into existence later on, then, that cannot be made the basis for determining the character of the land. This matter was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P. (1993) 2 SCC 546 and it was observed as under : "The 'master plan' defined in section 2(h) and referred in the definition of 'urban land' in section 2 (o), including Explanation (C) therein, is obviously a master plan prepared and in existence at the time of commencement of the Act when by virtue of section 3 of the Act, rights of the holder of the land under the Act get crystallised and extinguish his right to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit The proceedings for determining the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit according to the machinery provided in the Act is merely for quantification, and to effectuate the rights and liabilities which have crystallised at the time of commencement of the Act. The contrary view taken on the construction made of these provisions by the High Court cannot, therefore, be accepted". The aforementioned decision was followed by this Court in 1994 (II) MPWN 56 . Hon'ble Shri A.K. Mathur, J, relying on the aforementioned decision, came to the conclusion that the nature of the land is to be seen ignoring the Master Plan. The same view was expressed by this Court in the case of Preetam Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (Misc. Petition No. 948 of 1990, decided on 26.8.1994). In view of the decision given by1he Supreme Court and the view expressed by this Court, this petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Competent Authority. The same view was expressed by this Court in the case of Preetam Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (Misc. Petition No. 948 of 1990, decided on 26.8.1994). In view of the decision given by1he Supreme Court and the view expressed by this Court, this petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority would re-determine the nature of the land after ignoring the Master Plan.