Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. Rule. Learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas waives service of rule for the respondents. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal No. 133/91 at Annexure-G dated 30.4.1992 and also the order at Annexure-C dated 23.6.1986 cancelling the exemption regarding the agricultural land on the grounds stated in the petition.

2. The facts of the case as stated and briefly summarized are that the petitioners are the family members who are nationals and citizens of India having agricultural land cultivated by them bearing Survey No. 211/2/2 and 215/1 admeasuring about 4356 and 1619 sq.mtrs. The exemption was granted under sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act') as per the order at Annexure-A. However, the same was withdrawn on the ground that it was required for Industrial Training Institute for which the order at Annexure-C dated 23.6.1986 was passed. It was carried further and the petitioners have filed Form No. 6 and thereafter necessary documents contending that the exemption granted under sec. 20 is deemed to have continued as the possession is not taken. However, the order at Annexure-D came to be passed by respondent No. 1 declaring it to be an excess vacant land. The order passed by respondent No. 1 Competent Authority was carried by way of Appeal No. 133/91 before the Urban Land Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the land in question were given to the father of the petitioners by Bhoodan Samiti for the personal cultivation and in fact it has been cultivated by the petitioners who are family members as an HUF land. It was submitted that the petitioners are economically backward and belong to the backward class and therefore the said order passed be set aside. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 30.4.1992.

3. The present petition has been filed on the grounds stated in the petition, inter alia, that the Authority and the Tribunal have failed to appreciate that it was a land given to the father of the petitioners by Bhoodan Samiti for the purpose of personal cultivation as member of the backward class. It was also submitted that the decision for withdrawal of exemption granted under sec. 20 of the Ceiling Act was erroneous as, when the land is cultivated and as the possession is not taken for a long period, the exemption is deemed to have continued and there is no public purpose. It is also contended that residential houses are constructed (58.52 sq.mtrs.) and it cannot be said that it is vacant land as contemplated under sec. 2(q) of the Act. It is contended that such houses are constructed prior to the ULC Act came into force in 1976 and therefore it would be exempted for the purpose of ceiling. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that when the order for exemption was reviewed for withdrawal of exemption, an opportunity of hearing has not been given and the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case back to the Authority.

4. It is required to be mentioned that the petition was initially dismissed as per the order passed by the High Court (Coram: A.P. Ravani, J.) dated 3.9.1992. Letters Patent Appeal No. 2336 of 2009 was preferred which came to be allowed vide order of the Division Bench consisting of SJ Mukhopadhyaya, CJ & Akil Kureshi, J. dated 5.3.2010 and the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Single Judge. It is in this background the matter has been placed for hearing afresh.

5. The petitioners also filed Civil Application No. 12036 of 2010 for amendment which was granted by the High Court (Coram: KS Jhaveri, J.) vide order dated 7.10.2010.

6. In the amendment it has been contended that at the time of withdrawal of exemption under sec. 20 opportunity of hearing ought to have been given and there was no breach of any of the conditions for gran