R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21/08/1980 (Annexure d to the petition) passed by the competent authority. By that order, the petitioners form No. i has been finalised and out of the total holding of 1934. 13 sq. mts. of land, the petitioner has been permitted to retain the land upto 1000 sq. mts. as per the ceiling limit for ahmedabad urban agglomeration and 934. 13 sq. mts. has been declared to be surplus land and a draft statement was issued on 18/06/1980. The petitioner filed his petition on 13/07/1980 and submitted that as there is electric grid line passing over the land, the land to the extent of 1027. 24 sq. mts. was useless for any construction and, therefore, it cannot be treated as vacant land. The authority has rejected that contention. ( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that the order of the competent authority does not record any reasons; it is not a speaking order and, therefore, it is illegal. Secondly, it is submitted that under the building permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, there is a specific condition that no construction should he made within 10. 66 mts. of the grid line and the petitioner is, therefore, required to keep the land to the extent of 1027. 24 sq. mts. as totally vacant because the Municipal Corporation has put that specific condition of not putting up any construction on that part of the land. ( 3 ) THE relevant definition is in Sec. 2 (q) (i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which reads as under :"2 (Q) vacant land means land, not being land, mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration but does not include : (i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated. "admittedly the land is open and vacant land without any construction and if the petitioner wants it to be excluded from the vacant land, he has to show that no construction of any building is permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated. "admittedly the land is open and vacant land without any construction and if the petitioner wants it to be excluded from the vacant land, he has to show that no construction of any building is permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated. The learned Counsel submitted that although there is no such building regulation of the municipal or town planning authorities, the regulation is contained in Rules 79 and 80 of the Electricity Rules, 1966. If these Rules prohibit construction of any building under the grid line, it would be building regulations in force in the area and such building regulations need not be of the municipal authority. If any regulations in force in an area prohibit construction of a building on a given land, it would be covered by sub-clause (i) of Sec. 2 (q ). However, reading Rules 79 and 80, it is clear that there is no absolute prohibition on construction. These Rules merely provide for minimum clearance between the grid line and the construction. It provides for minimum clearance of 13 metres, vertical and 7 metres horizontal. Therefore, from 15 feet of margin from the end of the grid line, construction is permitted. There is no other provision prohibiting construction. Therefore, even under the grid line, after providing for this clearance, the construction is permissible upto that clearance and, therefore, the definition of "vacant land" does not help the petitioner. On the contrary, it shows that the land is within the definition of "vacant land" and it is not excluded by clause (i) thereof. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of the supreme Court regarding the requirement of recording reasons in the case of s. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 . There cannot be any dispute that reasons are to be recorded. In the present case, there is only a short point as to whether there is any building regulation which totally prohibits any construction below the grid line. Since no such regulation is pointed out, the authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the land is vacant land. The petitioner had claimed exclusion under Sec. 2 (q) (i ). It was for the petitioner to point out relevant regulation if any. Since no such regulation is pointed out, the authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the land is vacant land. The petitioner had claimed exclusion under Sec. 2 (q) (i ). It was for the petitioner to point out relevant regulation if any. If the petitioner has not pointed out any regulation, there was no alternative to the authority but to hold that the land is a vacant land. Even though the order is a brief one, it clearly refers to the contention of the petitioner that as the grid line was passing over the land, therefore, the land was required to be excluded from the petitioners holding of vacant land. However, in support thereof, the petitioner has not shown any building regulation prohibiting construction and, therefore, the order was passed rejecting that contention. It cannot be said that the order is not a speaking order. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the competent authority is not illegal or erroneous and is not required to be interferred with. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. The petitioner submits that even in that case, the petitioner has an option to choose the land which is required to be surrendered for declaring the same to be surplus. It would be for the authorities to consider the same in the further proceedings that may be taken hereafter. No order as to cost. .