A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Trust is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The petitioner applied under Sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 for exemption from operation of certain provisions of the Act The application has been rejected. Hence the petition. ( 2 ) NOTICE was ordered to be issued on 7/09/1987 in view of the amendment sought by the petitioner in the petition. By amendment it was specifically averred that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order under Sec. 20 of the Act. However it appears from the record of the case that the petitioner had made further written submissions on 4/06/1986 As mentioned in the written submissions the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard in person on 28/05/1986 Therefore the contention sought to be raised by way of amendment of the petition that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard is based on incorrect facts. The petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of being heard in person. Therefore this contention fails. ( 3 ) THE application under Sec. 20 of the Act has been rejected inter alia on the ground that the petitioner-Trust cannot be permitted to use the land for commercial purposes. The object for which the Trust is formed is not to carry on any commercial activity. The main object of the Trust is to carry on educational activities for secondary and higher education. Thus conversion of the Trust-property for commercial use would not be in consonance with the object of the Trust. Therefore if the application is rejected on this ground the same cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary or unreasonable. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner states that certain points raised in the application under Sec. 20 of the Act and certain material placed before respondents have not been considered by the respondent-Authorities. It may be so. While disposing of the application under Sec. 20 of the Act the Authority is not required to consider each and piece of evidence and entire material placed on record. All that is required by the authority exercising power under Sec. 20 of the Act is to pass reasonably reasoned order (See: Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi and Ors. It may be so. While disposing of the application under Sec. 20 of the Act the Authority is not required to consider each and piece of evidence and entire material placed on record. All that is required by the authority exercising power under Sec. 20 of the Act is to pass reasonably reasoned order (See: Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat 25 GLR 322 ). The phrase reasonably reasoned order would not take into its phrase consideration of each and every piece of evidence and entire material on record. The order should indicate the reasons which have weighed with the Authority while disposing of the application. Thus the reasons should no the extraneous and-arbitrary. Non-consideration of a particular piece of evidence or certain material would not render invalid the order passed under Sec. 20 of the Act. Again this Court while exercising powers under Art. 226 and 227 does not seat in appeal over the order of respondent-Authority. All that is required to be examined by this Court is as to whether the order passed is not arbitrary and or mala fide. By applying the standard of reasonably reasoned order the impugned order can never be said to be arbitrary or non-speaking order. ( 5 ) THE petition though labelled as one under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Even so I have dealt with the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which would strictly not mean be within the scope of a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no error much less error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order passed by the respondent-Authorities cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary or unreasonable. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition is rejected. Notice discharged. Rule discharged. .