(1.) . This matter was heard at length on 29th and 30/03/1993. The learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr. Dave, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader have advanced various arguments in this matter.
(2.) . Petitioners have preferred this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal which has confirmed the order passed by the Competent Officer under provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Only two contentions have been advanced before me : (i) With regard to the property situated at Shahpur, which is referred to at Sl. No. 3 in the order passed by the Competent Authority at Annexure 'A', the authorities ought to have come to the conclusion that the land being occupied by buildings, is not a 'vacant land', and, (ii) Property referred to at Sl. No. 5 Survey No. 274 of Hirpur which is a piece of land being used by the petitioner as agricultural land, is not a vacant land or under Sec. 20 it be exempted being agricultural land.
(3.) . Before considering the second question raised by the learned Advocate, it is necessary to consider the provisions contained in the Constitution of India (for short 'Constitution' hereinafter), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (for short 'Tenancy Act' hereinafter), the provisions contained in Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short 'Ceiling Act' hereinafter) and the provisions contained in the Act. It is also necessary to consider guidelines issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Works and Housing) under the provisions of the Act. Under the caption 'Socialisation of Urban Land', it is observed as under in the aforesaid guidelines :