Judgment P. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1991 (Annx. 4) of the Authorised Officer, Bikaner and the order dated 10-1-1994 (Annex. 5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by which it was held that urban land measuring 497. 61 sq. m. in respect of Govindnarain and Padmakar was acquirable. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularisation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE brief facts material for the decision of this petition may be stated as follows. Petitioner No. 1s father late Shri Govindharain Vyas and petitioner Padmakar Vyas were the cosharers in the ancestral property described in para 2 of the petition on the date of the coming into force of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain had, therefore, equal shares in the aforesaid properties. It may be stated that this fact was not disputed in the impugned orders. Both the above petitioners filed separate statements as required by Section 16 (1) of the Act. Copies of the above statements have been annexed with the petition and are marked Annex-1 and Annex-2. Notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act was issued by the Authorised Officer to petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain. The copy of the notice has been submitted with the petition and marked Annex. 3. Objections were submitted by Shri Govindnarain through his counsel Shri Bulakidas. The Authorised Officer vide his order dated 28-9-1991 estimated the total area of vacant land held by the petitioner and Shri Govindnarain as 4994. 22 sq. m. and passed order for acquiring 497. 61 sq. m. from each of the two cosharers after allowing 2000 sq. m. to each petitioner. The copy of the impugned order is Annex. 4. Aggrieved by the above order Shri Govindnarain and petitioner No. 1 preferred separate appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 33 of the Act which were numbered as 6/91 and 7/91 respectively. It may be stated that during the pendency of the appeal Govindnarain died on 2-8-1992 and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were substituted as appellants in place of late Shri Govindnarain. Since the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 also have equal share in the ancestral property held by the petitioner No. 1, they have also been impleaded as petitioners in this case. 1 and 2 were substituted as appellants in place of late Shri Govindnarain. Since the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 also have equal share in the ancestral property held by the petitioner No. 1, they have also been impleaded as petitioners in this case. ( 3 ) A reference regarding the material finding arrived at by the competent authority may be referred. The Authorised Officer held : (i) that the land area in property No. 1 situated at Chugaran Mohalla measuring 72-36 sq. m. was fully constructed, (ii) property at Jagman Well contained 2. 55 sq. m. construction and the remaining 101. 45 sq. m. was left by him as land appurtenant to the building, (iii) in relation to Chukhati Mohalla there was constructed area of 180. 50 sq. m. was considered as land appurtenant thereto, (iv) in relation Rani Bazar property the construction area was 56. 35 sq. m. and the remaining 170. 75 sq. m. was considered as land appurtenant thereto. (v) in relation to the property as Gajner Road, Outside Jassusar Gate constructed area was 50. 43 sq. m. Land measuring 500 sq. m. was allowed as land appurtenant thereto. However, while calculating the vacant land with the petitioner No. 1 late Shri Govindnarain, the Authorised Officer included the total area of land ignoring the constructed building and held as such by the above two persons. He estimated the total area of the land to be 2497. 61 sq. m. and after allowing 2000 sq. m. ordered acquisition of 497. 61 sq. m. as the land found surplus. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner committed a legal serious error and dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer dated 28-9-1981. The copy of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner is Annex. 5. ( 4 ) THE petitioners in the petition have assailed the above impugned orders on the ground that they are contrary to law and, therefore, liable to be quashed by issuance of an appropriate writ, direction of order. It was averred that there was no controversy except with regard to the property situated outside Jassusar Gate, Gajner Road. The Authorised Officer in his order itself found all the other urban properties in order and not falling within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. It was averred that there was no controversy except with regard to the property situated outside Jassusar Gate, Gajner Road. The Authorised Officer in his order itself found all the other urban properties in order and not falling within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. Hence the Authorised Officer as well as the Divisional Commissioner fell into a serious error in counting the land covered by the above properties with the Gajner Road Property. The provisions of the Act do not apply to all the other properties except the Gajner Road Property because the excepting properties do not fall within the definition of vacant land. Hence the above four properties could not have been clubbed with the property in question. The Authorised Officer has himself held that 50. 43 sq. m. is constructed area on the Jassusar Gate Property. He has also allowed 500 sq. m. as land appurtenant thereto. The vacant land thus can only be 4332 sq. m.- 550. 43 sq. m. = 3821. 27 sq. m. Since petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain had equal share in the said vacant land. If the same is divided into two the vacant land coming to share is to the tune of 1936. 87 sq. m. which is less than the permissible limit of 2000 sq. m. Hence no excess land remained after making the above computation and no question of acquiring 497. 61 sq. m. arose. The Authorised Officer as well as the Divisional Commissioner wrongly interpreted the two Supreme Court Cases cited before them. ( 5 ) NO reply was filed on behalf of the non-petitioners. ( 6 ) I have heard Shri N. S. Acharya learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S. S. Bhandawat learned counsel for the non-petitioners. ( 7 ) SHRI Acharya referred to the impugned order of the Authorised Officer dated 28-9-1991 and submitted that at page 2, the Authorised Officer, after taking into consideration the reports submitted by the Survey Officer, detailed the properties regarding which assessment was made. Shri Acharya has submitted that after scrutinising each property the Authorised Officer found that there was no vacant land as regards properties described at serial Nos. 1 to 4. He took into consideration the constructed area and then allowed 500 sq. m. as land appurtenant thereto and found that they were in order and no excess land was left for acquisition. 1 to 4. He took into consideration the constructed area and then allowed 500 sq. m. as land appurtenant thereto and found that they were in order and no excess land was left for acquisition. However, his objection was with regard to the property situated at Gajner Road at Serial No. 5. While calculating the vacant land with regard to property situated at Gajner Road, the Authorised Officer erroneously included the vacant land of the other properties alongwith this property and held that the petitioners were in possession of 4995. 20 sq. m. According to him each petitioner was, therefore, entitled to get 2497. 61 sq. m. and land measuring 497. 61 sq. m. of both the petitioners cumulatively was acquirable. He, therefore, passed the order acco-rdingly. Shri Acharya submitted that when the appeal was filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner the case was argued at length and both the Supreme Court cases i. e. State of U. P. v. L. J. Jhonson (p. 45) and Smt. Meena Gupta v. State of Bengal as cited in "leading Cases on Urban Land" by S. K. Awasthi (1995 Edition ). However, the learned Divisional Commissioner, though referred the two cases, did not comprehend the principles enunciated therein and came to a wrong conclusion. Learned counsel has submitted that in another case of this High Court Sampat Singh Bhandawat v. State of Rajasthan : cited in the same book this Court clearly held that the petitioner was entitled to get 500 sq. m. of land as land appurtenant to each tank. There were two tanks situated on the vacant land of the petitioner besides other properties. According to Shri Acharya the glaring error in both the orders is that the vacant land which was not in fact vacant land after computing the same as land appurtenant to each property attached with it has been clubbed with the land of the property situated at Gajne Road. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has supported the orders of the authorities below. ( 8 ) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant provisions of the Act. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has supported the orders of the authorities below. ( 8 ) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant provisions of the Act. ( 9 ) IN State of U. P. v. L. J. Jhonson, the Apex Court while analysing the different provisions of the Act concluded :"in the ultimate analysis the position is quite clear that Section 4 (9) contemplates that if a persons holds vacant land as also other portion of land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit, the extent of land occupied by the building and the land appurtenant thereto shall be taken into account in calculating the extent of the vacant land. This sub-section has to be read in conjunction with Section 2 (q) (ii) and (iii ). A combined reading of these two statutory provisions would lead to the irresistible inference that in cases which fall within the third category mentioned above, (1) total area of the land of a land-holder is first to be determined and if the total area, built or unbuilt, falls below 2000 sq. metres in catgory D areas, there would be no question of any excess land. (2) Where, however, there is a building and a dwelling unit then the area beneath the building and the dwelling unit would have to be excluded while computing the ceiling. Further, if there are any, land-holder would be allowed to set apart the said land to the maximum extent of 500 sq. metres. 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 little compound also for various purpose. " ( 10 ) IN Smt. Meena Gupta v. State of West Bengal and ors. while dealing with the definition of "vacant land" as given in S. 2 (q) of the Act, the following observations occur :-"to begin with vacant land as per the definition given in clause (q) of S. 2 means land as such, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, but situated in an urban agglomeration. vacant land however, does not include, as per the definition, land of three categories. The first category is land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated. vacant land however, does not include, as per the definition, land of three categories. The first category is land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated. But this is a category with which we are not concerned in the instant case. Johnsons case (supra) is of this category. The second category is of land occupied by any building in an area, where there are building regulations, which has been constructed upon or is under construction on the appointed day, with the approval of the appropriate authority, and the land appurtenant to such building. This means that if the building stood constructed on the land prior to January 28, 1976, the land occupied under the building is not vacant land. It also covers the land on which any buildilng was in the process of construction on January 28, 1976 with the approval of the appropriate authority. That too is not vacant land. Additionally, the land appurtenant to these two kinds of builidings is also not vacant land. The third category likewise conditioned is of land occupied by any building in an area where there are no building regulations, which has been constructed before January 26, 1976 or is in the process of construction on such date, and the land appurtenant to these two kinds of buildings. " ( 11 ) IN Dr. S. S. Bhandawat v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the brief facts were that the petitioner filed the statement or return as envisaged in S. 6 (1) of the Act read with R. 3 of the urban Land Ceiling and Regulations Rules, 1976. Thereafter a survey was conducted under the orders of the Competent Authority. Eventually the Competent Authority passed the order Ex. 4. The Competent Authority determined the total ceiling area. The dispute arose with regard to covered tanks in the petitioners house as Rainbow house, Paota, Mandore Road comprising 4961 sq. metres including constructed area and open land. The Competent Officer allowed 500 sq. metres as land appurtenant to one tank and 200 sq. metres appurtenant to another tank. The excess area of first tank was 20. 90 sq. metres and of the other tank, the covered area was 11. 40 sq. metres. Both the tanks were separate and away from the main building. The Competent Officer allowed 500 sq. metres as land appurtenant to one tank and 200 sq. metres appurtenant to another tank. The excess area of first tank was 20. 90 sq. metres and of the other tank, the covered area was 11. 40 sq. metres. Both the tanks were separate and away from the main building. The question arose whether the above tanks could be considered as building and on that basis whether the petitioner could claim a land as land limit appurtenant to the extent of permissible under the Act. After dealing with the relevant law and authorities of other High Courts it was held that the tanks amounted to building. Word "building" is a word of wider connotations so as to include any built structure. In view of the above finding this High Court allowed the petitioners to claim 500 sq. m. of land as land appurtenant to each tank. For the above reasons the writ was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. ( 12 ) IN Meena Guptas case (supra) with regard to clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (q) of S. 2 it was further observed that the interpretation in Johnsons case was with regard to cl. (i) of cl. (q) of S. 2. ( 13 ) FROM the perusal of the facts and law laid down in the above case that while making the assessment for the purpose of ceiling of urban land, the properties must be assessed individually. While making such assessment if the property is found to be within permissible limit after taking into consideration the constructed area, land appurtenant thereto it must be excluded from consideration. In other words each property is to be assessed separately and the land found appurtenant must not be clubbed with the land in respect of which any surplus land is found. In the instant case both the petitioners have got one-half share in the property situated at Jassusar Gate, Gajner Road and after allowing the constructed area and the land appurtenant thereto the land that remains is 3871. 57 sq. metres. The share of each petitioner, on division, is less than the vacant land allowed to petitioner to the tune of 2000 sq. metres. 57 sq. metres. The share of each petitioner, on division, is less than the vacant land allowed to petitioner to the tune of 2000 sq. metres. ( 14 ) FOR the above reasons, I accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the competent Officers dated 28-9-1991 and the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner dated 10-1-1994. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.