( 1 ) UNDUE hardship (not mere hardship undue hardship) an expression occurring in sec. 20 (1) (b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 which has been enacted inter alia to prevent concentration of urban lands in few hands and to secure its equitable distribution has given rise to the controversy which is in the centre in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said provision empowers the State Govt. to grant exemption from operation of Chapter III of the Act to a holder of vacant land in excess of the ceiling in case the State Govt. is satisfied that undue hardship would be caused to him. Indebtedness of a holder of land without anything more entitles a holder of excess land to claim exemption under the said provision in view of Odhavji Narsi v. State of Gujarat 17 G. L. R. 259 contends the petitioner. The learned Chief Justice before whom the matter came up for admission being unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge has referred the matter to a Division Bench. Be it realised that in Odhavji Narsis Case the learned single Judge was called upon to interpret the expression hardship occurring in sec. 7 (2) of the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act of 1972. We are concerned with the expression undue hardship in the context of a different statue viz. the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 But subject to this point of distinction prima facie Odhavji Narsis case lends support to the proposition (apparently an extremely wide one)being canvassed by the petitioner. It is in this backdrop that we are faced with this delicate question. Delicate because construed too narrowly the exemption clause may become self-defeating and may not achieve its life aim. Construed too widely it will sound the death-knell of the Act itself. But before we undertake the task we must look at the landscape.

( 2 ) THE petitioner approached the Secretary Revenue Departments Govt. of Gujarat by way of an application as per Annexure A dated August 12 1976 with a prayer that he may be exempted from the operation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act under sec. 20 (1) (b) on the ground of undue hardship to him. The petitioner thereafter produced certain material in order to show the extent of his indebtedness as per Annexure B collectively. After hearing the petitioner the Under Secretary Revenue Department Govt. of Gujarat rejected the application of the petitioner by a speaking order as per annexure C dated September 12 1979 There upon the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE material produced before the competent authority goes to show that the petitioner is indebted to a very great extent. The particulars of his indebtedness are as under:-RS. 3 35 653 with running interest at 12% per the decree passed by Second Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Baroda in Special Suit No. 352/73. RS. 4 98 717 with running interest as per the award rendered by the Court of Board of Nominees Co-operative Societies on May 10 1973rs. 5 26 341 due to depositors as per the balancesheet for S. Y. 2032 (statement of liabilities for the S. Y. 2032 of the firm M/s. Industrial India ). RS. 3 55 998 with running interest as per decree passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Baroda in Special Suit No. 106/73. RS. 4 44 444 due to depositors as per the balancesheet for S. Y. 2032 (statement of liabilities for the S. Y. 2032 of the firm M/s. Bharat Chemicals ). According to the petitioner there are other debts also. We may mention that we are not concerned with either the genuineness or the true extent of the debts for the purposes of the present petition. We are concerned with the question as to whether a holder of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit whose debts far exceed his total assets can claim exemption under sec. 20 (1) (b) on the ground of undue hardship to him. The view