( 1 ) WHETHER rejection of an application under Sec. 21 (1) of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("u. L. C. Act" for short) on the sole ground that the party has not produced evidence to show as to when the application under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act was made, is legal and valid, is the central theme of the present petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner and occupier of the lands bearing survey numbers 483, 403 and 475 situated in the sim of Gotri of district Vadodara. These agricultural lands totally admeasured about 4,094 sq. mts. which are hereinafter referred to as "the disputed lands". The petitioner had obtained exemption under Sec. 20 of the u. L. C. Act to carry out agricultural operations in the disputed lands. The authority had granted exemption to utilise the agricultural lands for agricultural purpose by an order dated 31-5-1979 under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act. The said permission for exemption came to be cancelled by the respondent authority by passing an order dated 9-11-1990.

( 3 ) THE petitioner later on submitted an application under Sec. 21 of the U. L. C. Act to put up a scheme for accommodation for weaker section of the society on 4-3-1991. This application under Sec. 21 was submitted within a period of 1139 days as required under proviso (b) to Rule 11 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Rules, 1976 ("u. L. C. Rules" for short ). Respondent No. 1 - Competent authority and Additional Collector (U. L. C.), Vadodara rejected the said application by passing an order dated 19-9-1991 holding that the petitioner had failed to prove as to on which date, the application for exemption of agricultural property under sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act was made. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter before the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad in appeal No. 8 of 1991, under Sec. 33 of the U. L. C. Act which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. A mere look at the impugned orders would show that rejection of an application under Sec. 21 (1) of the U. L. C. Act is unjust, perverse and illegal requiring interference of this Court exercising extraordinary, discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction for the following reasons :

( 4 ) NOTHING has been shown in the impugned orders as to why and how proof of date of submission of the application under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act was necessary and/or relevant for the purpose of adjudicating upon merits of the application under Sec. 21 of the U. L. C. Act. Both the authorities have mechanically held that in absence of proof of date of submission of the application under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act, the application for exemption under Sec. 21 is required to be rejected. There is neither logic nor legality in such an approach.

( 5 ) WHAT is required to be shown is compliance of provisions of proviso (b) to Rule 11 of the Rules. It would be profitable at this stage to refer to the said provisions :"every declaration under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 21 by a person holding vacant land shall be made within one thousand, one hundred and thirty-nine days from the commencement of the Act and shall be in Form G : provided that - x x x x x x x x x x x x (b) where any vacant land held by any person and exempted by clause (iv) of subsec. (1) of Sec. 19 or sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20 ceases to be so exempted and as a consequence thereof the extent of such land, together with the extent of the vacant land, if any, already held by him, exceeds in the aggregate the ceiling limit, then the time within which such person may file the declaration referred to under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 21 shall be one thousand, one hundred and thirty-nine days from the date on which such vacant land ceases to be so exempted. "it could very well be seen from the aforesaid provisions that in the aforesaid land held by the land-holder and exempted by the competent authority under Sec. 19 (1) (iv) or under Sec. 20 (