( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is mainly engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of sugar. It owns properties at Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad cities. After coming into force of Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, they filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act. The Special Officer and competent Authority, Visakhapatnam, the third respondent herein, processed the declaration and determined that the petitioner-company owns surplus vacant land of 1 hectare 4609 Sq. Mts. in R. S. Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 in Kottavankojapalem in visakhapatnam District, Urban Agglomeration and 650 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 26 (P) at Cheekoti gardens, Begumpet. After completing necessary formalities like final statement under Sections 8 (3) and 9, action was initiated for taking possession of the surplus land. At that stage, the petitioner-company made an application under Section 20 (1) (a) of the Act seeking exemption of the surplus vacant land from the provisions of the Act. In their application, be it noted, dated 31. 3. 1987 they stated that in view of the expansion of the industry taken by them, the requirement of office accommodation is increased. That was the reason given while seeking exemption of the land in cheekoti Gardens. Insofar as the land at visakhapatnam is concerned, they stated that the land is required for industrial expansion.

( 2 ) THE Government of Andhra pradesh, the first respondent have by the impugned Memono. l51/uc. III/76-54dated 14. 12. 1993 rejected the application for exemption under Section 20 (l) (a) of the act. In this writ petition challenging the rejection letter it is contended that the urban vacant land in respect of which exemption was sought is required for industrial expansion and office purpose and hence rejection of the request for exemption without assigning any reasons is ultra vires of the power under Section 20 (l) (a) conferred by the Act.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter is pending before this Court, the Government of Andhra pradesh issued orders under Section 23 of the Act in G. O. Ms. No. 456 dated 29. 7. 2002 proposing to exempt the urban vacant land subject to certain conditions including payment of the market value as fixed by the said G. O. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application being WPMP No. 9069 of 2003 to amend the prayer in the writ petition so as to enable the petitioner-company to pray alternatively for a direction to the respondents to consider and allot the land admeasuring" acs. 3. 61 cents in Sy. No. 19/1 and 19/2 of kotha Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. This application is not opposed and as such the same is ordered.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Venkataramana submits that while exercising the power under Section 20 (l) (a) it is incumbent on the part of the government to give reasons for rejecting the application as every declarant who filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Act has a legitimate expectation to seek exemption. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in T. R. Thandur v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1643, in support of the above contention. Alternatively he submits that every person, who is declared to be a surplus vacant landholder, is given an opportunity by the Government itself to seek exemption in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 456 and as the said G. O. came into force during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to make an application under the same.

( 5 ) THE respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. The learned Government pleader made submissions based on record produced. According to the learned government Pleader, Government appointed a Committee vide orders in G. O. Ms. No. 272 dated 28. 12. 1989 to process the applications for exemption under Section 20 of the Act; the application made by the petitioner was processed by the said committee after getting the necessary reports from the third respondent as well as th