JUDGMENT 1. Paritosh K. Mokherjee, J. This writ petition which is of 1989, orgin, come up for admission and by the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the original writ petitioner SRI Prem Nath Agarwal having been died, a formal substitution application has been made on behalf of the heirs for substituting their name in place of the deceased original writ petitioner. The said application for substitution is taken up for hearing and the name of the heirs which are reproduced below are being substituted:- (1) Smt. Anuragni Agarwal widow of late Sri Prem Nath Agarwal (2) Sri Madan Gopal Agarwal s/o Late Sri Prem Nath Agarwal (3) Rajiv Agarwal s/o Late Sri Prem Nath Agarwal (4) Smt. Renu Jain (5) Nisha Singhal (6) Neera Gupta (7) Rekha Garg All daughters of late Sri Prem Nath Agarwal, and all the the above are resident of Bajoria Road, Saharanpur. 3. Registry is directed to link up such substitution application with the main petition which is not available on record, although the same has been filed in the registry by the learned counsel on 4-4-1994. Writ petition may also be amended accordingly. 4. The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the notice dated 9-5-1988 in casa No. 3237 of 1976, State of U. P. v. Prem Nath Agarwal, issued by the competent authority upon the original petitioner, Prem Nath Agarwal, which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, set out at page 26, which is in Hindi. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made English translation of the aforesaid notice for the convenience of the Court in order to decide the writ petition finally. 5. By the said notice it appears that the said authority has refer red to the Ceiling Case No. 3237 of 1976, State v. Prem Nath which was decided by the District Judge whereby the Und of the petitioner was held to be exempted from the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, and, considered the same to be 'agricultural Land'. 6. By the said notice it appears that the said authority has refer red to the Ceiling Case No. 3237 of 1976, State v. Prem Nath which was decided by the District Judge whereby the Und of the petitioner was held to be exempted from the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, and, considered the same to be 'agricultural Land'. 6. By said notice it was further stated that with effect from 29-9-1987 a 'master Plan' has been made applicable in the city of Saharanpur, whereby under the explanation appended to Section 6 (1) of the said Act the land of the petitioner was declared as 'vacant land' and it was then required that the petitioner should file statement under Section 6 (1) of the Act. Thereafter in exercising the powers under Section 6 (1) of the Act, the petitioner was asked for to submit his statement by 24-6-1988, failing which criminal prosecution was directed to be initiated against the petitioner, under Section 38 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel, however, in challenging the aforesaid notice has referred to the recent decision, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2465 Smt. Alia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U. P. and others, wherein their lordships inter alia came to the following conclusion:- "the scheme of the Act supports the construction that the Explanation (c) to Section 2 (o) means that if the land has been specified in the master plan existing at the time of commencement of the Act for a purpose other than agriculture, then the land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture by virtue of the Explanation and not if the land is specified in a master plan prepared after the commencement of the Act. The plain language of Explanation (c) hears this construction and requires it to be so construed in order to harmonise it with the other provisions and scheme of the Act. Just as the holder of the land cannot by his subsequent actions reduce the area of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, the authorities too cannot be any subsequent action increase the area of the excess vacant land by a similar asction. " 8. This judgment has been shown to the learned standing counsel who is contesting the writ petition on behalf of the respondent authorities. " 8. This judgment has been shown to the learned standing counsel who is contesting the writ petition on behalf of the respondent authorities. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and having considered the said judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court applies to the facts of the present writ petition and this Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that the impugned notice dated 9-5-1988 m case No. 3237 of 1976 issued in respect of the original petitioner, which has been substituted by the heirs, cannot be sustained in law, and, is being set aside by issue of writ of certiorari. 9. The said notice dated 9-5-1988, contained in Annexure 3 is accordingly set aside. 10. Respondents and each one of them are restrained from proceeding any further in pursuant to the notice dated 9-5-1988. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.