A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society. It prays that the order dated 31/05/1988 (Annexure C to the petition) passed by the Urban Land Tribunal (Appellate Authority) be quashed and set aside and direction may be given to the State Government to grant the application for exemption to the land in question under Sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the State Government be further directed to resell the land to the petitioner-Society after fixing upset price under the provisions of Sec. 23 of the Act. 2 It is an undisputed position that the land in question of Survey No. 50/1 part 4811 and 48/2 of village Piplod taluka Choriasi district Surat admeasures 31085 sq. metres is situated within the urban agglomeration area of Surat City. It is the case of the petitioner that the land originally belonged to a trust and the managing trustee of the trust had sold the land to Hindu Undivided Family of one Shri Vallabhbhai Purshottambhai of which the Karta Was Shri Narottambhai Vallabhbhai. The petitioner has purchased the 1and in public auction held by the Special Recovery Officer for consideration of Rs. 4 51 0 The auction was held for realisation of the dues of a co-operative society from the aforesaid land-holder. There appears to be some discrepancy as regards the narration of the facts which led to the holding of auction by the Special Recovery Officer. The discrepancy in the narration of the facts becomes apparent if one reads application under Sec. 20 of the Act dated 27/08/1988 (Annex. D) submitted by the petitioner-Society to the Government. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to this discrepancy and he has tried to show that there is a systematic device to circumbent the provisions of the Act and it is not a straight transaction as it is sought to be made out. However for the purpose of deciding this petition it is not necessary for me to go into the details as regards the manner in which the debt was created and the decree was passed and ultimately the land in question has been put to action by the Special Recovery Officer. However for the purpose of deciding this petition it is not necessary for me to go into the details as regards the manner in which the debt was created and the decree was passed and ultimately the land in question has been put to action by the Special Recovery Officer. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY on the date of commencement of the Act i. e 17/02/1976 the petitioner-Society had no interest whatsoever in the land in question. As disclosed in the petition the petitioner-Society had acquired interest in the land only pursuant to the auction held by the Special Recovery Officer on 7/04/1981 The mutation entry in the revenue record has been mate on 31/05/1981 Thus as per the case of the petitioner-Society itself it was neither in possession of the land nor it had any interest whatsoever in the land on 17/02/1976 According to the petitioner-Society it has acquired interest in the land some time in the month of April 1981 ( 3 ) IN respect of the land in question different co-owners of the members of the H. U. F. to which the land belonged had filled in forms under Sec. 6 of the Act. The decision given by the competent authority in respect of the forms filled in by the respective co-owners was challenged before the Urban Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for deciding the same in accordance with law ( 4 ) THE petitioner-Society submitted application before the Appellate Authority on 14/01/1985 This application appears to have been treated as appeal under Sec. 33 of the Act and numbered as Appeal No. 15 of 1985. This has been rejected by order Annexure C to the petition. The Appellate Authority has held that in respect of the land in question the land-holder has filled in the form under Sec. 6 of the Act and the same has not been finalised. When the form was filled in the petitioner-Society had no interest whatsoever in the land in question. Before the form is finalised the auction has taken place which is not in accordance with law and it is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the petitioner-Society cannot be said to be a person interested in the land. When the form was filled in the petitioner-Society had no interest whatsoever in the land in question. Before the form is finalised the auction has taken place which is not in accordance with law and it is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the petitioner-Society cannot be said to be a person interested in the land. The appeal has been rejected as per order dated 31/05/1988 The petitioner-Society feels aggrieved by this order and it has challenged the legality and validity of the order by filing this petition. ( 5 ) IT is contended that once there is an application for permission to sell the land and if there is no reply or the reply is to the effect that the permission is not necessary it should be held that the permission under Sec. 27 of the Act has been granted. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is nothing on record to show that the land-holders had ever applied for permission to sell the land. The land-holder on the appointed date i. e. 17/02/1976 was the H. U. F. of Shri Thakorbhai Vallabhbhai Patel. There is categorical finding of the appellate authority that the auction sale has taken place without permission of the appropriate authority under the Act. It is not even the case of the petitioner-Society that the auction sale has been effected after obtaining necessary permission under the relevant provisions of the Act. In view of this postilion provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act read with Sec. 42 of the Act would be attracted. As provided under Sec. 5 of the Act any transfer of vacant land within the urban agglomeration area concerned would be deemed to be null and void if the same is not effected in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore the contention that there was application under Sec. 27 of the Act and hence the permission should be deemed to have been granted and the sale is legal and valid cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the land-holder is to be given option for retaining the area of the land permissible under the Act the petitioner should be given an opportunity to exercise its choice. The contention is not well founded. The petitioner has not acquired any interest whatsoever in the land. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the land-holder is to be given option for retaining the area of the land permissible under the Act the petitioner should be given an opportunity to exercise its choice. The contention is not well founded. The petitioner has not acquired any interest whatsoever in the land. Therefore the petitioner has no right to exercise any option whatsoever in respect of the area of the land which may be retained by the land-holder. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the proceedings pursuant to the forms filled in under Sec. 6 of the Act by the original land holders have been remanded to the competent authority the petitioner-Society should also be permitted to participate in the proceedings. In his submission in view of the impugned order Annexure C to the petition passed by the competent authority it would not be possible for the petitioner-Society to participate in the proceedings before the competent authority. It may be so and in fact it should be so. Admittedly the petitioner-Society had no interest whatsoever in the land in question on the appointed date i. e. 17/02/1976 Therefore even apart from the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority at Annexure `c to the petition the competent authority would be justified in telling the petitioner that it had no interest whatsoever in the land on the appointed date and therefore it has no right to participate in the proceedings nor has it any right to be heard. Therefore it is not correct to say that the impugned order Annexure C comes in the way of the petitioner. What comes in the way of the petitioner is the provision of law itself and the fact that the petitioner had no interest in the land on the appointed date i. e. 17/02/1976 Since the petitioner was not in possession of the land nor bad the petitioner any interest whatsoever in the land on 17/02/1976 the competent authority would be very much justified in rejecting any such request if and when made by the petitioner. The order Annexure D is eminently just and proper and in conformity with the provisions of the law. Therefore for this reason the order cannot be interfered with. The order Annexure D is eminently just and proper and in conformity with the provisions of the law. Therefore for this reason the order cannot be interfered with. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner-Society itself has applied for exemption of the land in question from the operation of the Act under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act. Therefore it is prayed that the petition should be entertained. The application under Sec 20 of the Act can be submitted by the land-holder holding the land in excess of the ceiling limit. The petitioner is not the land-holder at all. Therefore at the instance of the petitioner no application under Sec. 10 of the Act is maintainable. Hence this submission is also rejected. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society and therefore charitable view should be taken by the Court The facts of the case do not warrant that any charitable view may be taken by the Court. On the contrary there appears to be some force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is a device to circumvent the provisions of the Act. Entertaining the petition and taking charitable view in the matter may amount to aiding such device. The position of law is very clear. The petitioner-Society had no interest in the land on the appointed date and therefore no charitable view is possible in the matter. If the Government on its own thinks fit to take any action in accordance with law it may do so. As far as this Court is concerned it would be proper to refrain from making any observation for taking charitable view in the matter. ( 10 ) NO other contention is raised. In the result there is no substance in the petition. Hence rejected. Notice discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. (REST of the Judgment is not material for the Reports.)RULE discharged. .