( 1 ) ). The order passed by and on behalf of the respondent. On 13th August 1987 under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the Act for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the application of the petitioner for exemption under Section 20 (1) of the Act came to be rejected.

( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The dispute centres round one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 165 admeasuring 4 acres 23 gunthas situated in village Majura taluka Choryasi district Surat (the disputed land for convenience ). It was originally owned by Nathubhai Ranchhodbhai and his two sons named Babubhai Nathubhai and Ishwarbhai Nathubhai. It appears that the owners executed one agreement on 8 January 1975 to sell the disputed land in favour of the petitioner. The agreement in that regard is at Annexure-B to this petition. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is a society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. A copy of its Registration Certificate is at Annexure-A to this petition Pursuant to the agreement at Annexure-B to this petition the possession of the disputed land was handed over to the society through its Chairman. It may be mentioned that the agreement at Annexure-B to this petition was executed in favour of the society inter alia through its Chairman Pursuant thereto the owners also executed one irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Chairman of the petitioner-society by name on 7th March 1975 its copy is at Annexure to this petition. Thereafter an application was made for the non-agricultural use of the disputed land By the order passed by the District Development Officer at Surat on 20th January 1976 the necessary permission in that regard was granted its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. It appears that the petitioner-society thereafter made one application to the respondents on 14th August 1976 claiming exception with respect to the disputed land under Section 20 (1) of the Act. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. It appears that in the meantime the petitioner-society had filed the declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6 (1) of the Act as the holder of the disputed land. The Competent Authority at Surat by his older passed on 15th February 1986 came to the conclusion that the holding of the petitioner was not in excess of the ceiling limit for the purposes of the Act. It appears to have come to the notice of the concerned officer of the respondent He appears to have found it not according to law. Its revision under Section 34 thereof was contemplated. Thereupon one show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 27th July 1986 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the aforesaid order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat on 15th February 1986 should not be revised. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. It appears that thereafter by the order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 13th August 1987 the application made by the petitioner for exemption under Section 20 (1) of the Act came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure-G to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-G to his petition.

( 3 ) ). It transpires from the tenor of the impugned order at Annexure-G to this petition that the application for exemption made by the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner could not be said to be the holder of the disputed land. The fate of its application for exemption has not been decided on merits. Kum. Shah for the petitioner has therefore urged that in view of the definition of the expression to hold contained in Section 2 (1) of the Act there is no escape front the conclusion that the petitioner would be the holder of the