JUDGMENT
M.R. Calla, J.
1. The petitioner held land in the District of Gandhinagar. The Urbnan Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, came into force in 1976 and the petitioner filed Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) disclosing the total holding of the land. Subsequently for the land bearing No. 371 of village Chandkheda, District Gandhinagar admeasuring 7790 Sq. Mts., the petitioners moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for exemption of the said land for the reason that they wanted to construct dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society. The whole Scheme had been elaborated by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that this Scheme proposed by the petitioners was considered after obtaining the technical opinion. But the respondent No. 2 sent letters to the Government and other authorities inquiring as to whether they require the said land. The Gujarat Housing Board and the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority had requested for the reservation of the said land with a view to develop the said land for commercial centre at the instance of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and houses at the instance of Gujarat Housing Board. Petitioners’ case is that neither the respondent No. 2 nor the authorities informed the petitioners about their requirement of the land in question and the petitioners came to know about this fact only when respondent No. 2 decided the matter ex parte on 10-2-1984. Respondent No. 2 did not call upon the petitioners to file any representation or remain present on the date of hearing. The order dated 10-2-1984 passed by respondent No. 2 has been placed on record as Annexure “A” and it has been stated that this order reveals that without giving any opportunity of hearing the said Scheme was rejected on the ground mat the land was required by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and Gujarat Housing Board.
2. So far as the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority is concerned the requirement is for commercial centre whereas the land in question is residential and, therefore, the request of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to make use of this land for commercial centre is not permissible under relevant Laws and Rules. However, constructing of houses is one of the essential functions of the Housing Board and if the Housing Board requires the land for the same purpose, i.e., to construct the houses, the question which falls for consideration is as to whether public body should be preferred over an individual for the same task or not?.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the two orders available at page 22 as Annexure “D” and yet another order at page 24 as Annexure “E”, which is the copy an order passed by this Court and has argued that in these matters, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has taken the view that making of the reference to the public body before passing orders under Section 21 was not necessary. I have gone through both the orders and the relevant provisions contained in Section 21. There cannot be any doubt that whenever Application under Section 21 is moved, the paramount consideration is that the land, which is sought to be exempted, has to be made use of for the persons belonging to lower strata or those, who belong to weaker sections of the society and if this laudable object is to be served, choice has to be made between the Housing Board or the individual. In such matters, if the job is entrusted to the public authorities on their demand for the land in question, there will be an effective and better utilisation of the land and such public bodies may very well take care to see that the object of provision of Section 21 is fully achieved and those, who are homeless, are rehabilitated and established on reasonable terms. I am not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders in the instant case, the Government had changed the policy of referring the matters to the public bodies and, therefore, even it Gujarat Housing Board had earlier held out that it wanted to make use of this land for construction of the houses, petitioners’ Application under Section 21 of the Act should not have been rejected on the basis that Housing Board was desirous to work out a Scheme on this land. The reason is that the executive circulars, relating to the policy matters, may be issued or withdrawn, but such circulars cannot have a retrospective or retro-active effect and even if such executive circulars are issued, the same are issued only to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to further the object sought to be achieved by such a wholesome Act. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioners in this regard fails and is hereby rejected, more particualrly because the circular requiring the reference to be made to the public bodies has been withdrawn subsequently and there is no basis to give any retrospective effect in matters like the present one.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that before rejecting the application under Section 21 neither any notice was given to them nor the petitioners were heard, and, therefore, the order rejecting their Application under Section 21 suffers from the vice of the violation of the principles of natural justice. I have gone through the provisions of Section 21 and the provisions of the Act do not cast any such obligation upon the concerned authority to give a notice or to call upon the applicant by giving notice or otherwise. Therefore, there is no basis to import the argument of violation of principles of natural justice and there is no question of setting aside the action on the ground that show cause notice had not been given as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act and accordingly the view taken in the Orders Annexures “D” and “E” is of no help to the petitioners.
5. On 9-1-1995 when the matter came up before the Court, during the course of the arguments, it was suggested to the learned A.G.P. to ascertain as to whether the Housing Board of Gujarat State was still interested to carry out any Housing Scheme on the land in question and for that purpose short time was granted. Today the concerned Executive Engineer Shri T.P. Desai of the Housing Division No. 2, Gujarat Housing Board is present with Mr. Uraizee, learned A.G.P. and he has categorically stated that the Gujarat Housing Board has proper budgetary provisions to work out this Scheme on the land in question, apart from the fact that the communication in this regard had been sent to the Competent Authority at the very time when the matter was pending before the said Authority.
6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit or substance in the present Special Civil Application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim order dated 19-12-1990 automatically stands vacated. No order as to costs. However, on the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the position as obtaining today may continue with regard to the land in question till 31-1-1995 only.