R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society and the respondent no. 2 is the original land holder. By an order dated March 27 1979 annexure-A to the petition exemption was granted to the land in question under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act 1976 The exemption was subject to interalia on the following two conditions : (1): That the society had to complete the construction of houses within two years and on expiry of that period in respect of the land that remained open the exemption would stand automatically cancelled; (2): Condition no. 1 I required that only one house should be allotted to a person and in breach of this condition two houses were allotted to husband and wife in seven cases and thus 14 houses were allotted to seven couples. A show cause notice come to be issued for breach of the aforesaid condition on September 16 1982 ( 2 ) IN the reply dated August 9 1982 annexure-D the petitioner society replied that due to scarcity of cement the construction could not be started and upto June 1982 only 300 bags cement was received and therefore some construction was made on the land and RCC work was done. It was also stated that the work of slab could not be done in 300 houses out of 324 houses and when the reply was given it was submitted that by obtaining non-levy cement A and B type of houses were almost completed in respect of 140 houses and regarding C type of houses slab and plaster work was in progress. ( 3 ) IN respect of allotment of two houses to the same family it was submitted that those who were serving in O. N. G. C and had taken loan their names are continued as members and the other persons were asked to resign and the work was in progress. ( 4 ) GOVERNMENT by its order dated April 30 1983 (Annexure-F) rejected the explanation and withdraw the exemption. ( 5 ) THIS petition was admitted and the order of withdrawal of exemption was stayed in 1983. Alongwith the petition about 20 photographs are produced showing that many houses were already constructed. ( 4 ) GOVERNMENT by its order dated April 30 1983 (Annexure-F) rejected the explanation and withdraw the exemption. ( 5 ) THIS petition was admitted and the order of withdrawal of exemption was stayed in 1983. Alongwith the petition about 20 photographs are produced showing that many houses were already constructed. ( 6 ) AT the hearing of this petition in 1993 it is submitted that all the houses are constructed and the members are occupying the same since last about ten years. ( 7 ) IT is true that exemption was granted subject to the condition of construction within two years failing which the exemption was liable to cancellation and within two years the construction was not made. However that has been substantially complied with while the proceeding was pending before the authority. The authority ought to have seen that after the show cause notice neither the construction took place nor panchnama is made as to the condition of the land. Since that was not done and the construction has been completed the condition is substantially satisfied and on that ground after this much lapse of time it would be unjust and harsh to cancel the entire exemption. ( 8 ) IN respect of the condition of allotting two houses in the same family the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this irregularity has also been rectified by taking the resignation of the other member. This cannot be said to be during the irregularity and getting the same condoned. The petitioner society has committed breach of the condition and has allotted houses to two members of the same family. It is only when it is detected that it is sought to put the things right. If this can be permitted every one would be tempted to commit such gross irregularities and if they go undetected nothing would happen and the irregularities would be perpetuated. If the same is detected by the authorities it would be cured at that time. There is no explanation as to why the breach in respect of land allotted for the houses allotted to these persons and therefore to that extent the exemption would be required to be cancelled. If the same is detected by the authorities it would be cured at that time. There is no explanation as to why the breach in respect of land allotted for the houses allotted to these persons and therefore to that extent the exemption would be required to be cancelled. ( 9 ) IN the result the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order cancelling the exemption is whole is quashed and set aside and it is confirmed only to the extent that the exemption would stand cancelled in respect of the land in respect of 14 persons (7 couples) who have been allotted houses in breach of the condition of exemption. Rule is partly made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed. .