R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-owner of vacant agricultural land bearing Survey No. 252 admeasuring 16188 sq. mts. and Survey No. 25 admeasuring 32375 sq. mts. was granted exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 16/06/1970 The main condition of exemption was that it shall he used for agricultural purposes only and that breach of the condition would attract cancellation of exemption. ( 2 ) IT appeared to the Government that there was unauthorised construction on the land and it was also recorded in the revenue record of village form 7/12. The panchanama showed that there was unauthorised construction in 4 acres of land of Survey No. 252 and I acre 33 gunthas of Survey No. 253 Therefore a show-cause notice was issued and after number of adjournments the Government passed an order cancelling the exemption. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed in utter disregard and violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 20 (2) of the Act which contemplates giving of a reasonable opportunity of hearing to a person in whose favour the exemption was granted. It is submitted that the petitioner was never given any such opportunity of any show cause notice. It is submitted that the show- cause notice was issued to the son of the petitioner Chhagan Bhikhabhai and Annexures C D and E are relied upon to show the said service of notice. The petitioner has also submitted that notices were served to his son Chhaganbhai who stays with the petitioner but it is alleged that he is not within the control and obedience of the petitioner and relations with him are strained and Chhaganbhai did not inform the petitioner about these notices. ( 4 ) THE village forms which are produced by the petitioner at Annexures A and B recite that there is unauthorised construction on the land in question. These are the village forms produced by the petitioner to contend that he has been cultivating the land but the record produced by him shows to the contrary. In para 4 the petitioner himself has stated that he has recently come to know that his son Chhagan was served with the show-cause notices dated 6. 2. 1988 1. 3 7. 4 and 29. In para 4 the petitioner himself has stated that he has recently come to know that his son Chhagan was served with the show-cause notices dated 6. 2. 1988 1. 3 7. 4 and 29. 9. 1988 and the order is passed on 19. 4. 1990. It is curious to find that he came to collect the show-cause notices even though he states that his son did not inform him about these notices and curiously enough the notices are received by him after the impugned order These averments of the petitioner are absolutely incredible. It is an utter lie of the petitioner when he says that he did not how about these proceedings or cancellation of exemption The show-cause notice Annexure-F to the petition is addressed to the petitioner and which has been received by the adult member of his family namely his son and it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been given notice and there is no service of notice to the petitioner. When the petitioner is an aged and illiterate person and putting only thumb impression if the registered post notice is received by another member of his family it is due service to the petitioner. The petitioner himself says that his son is residing with him. ( 5 ) THE panchanama shows that the land has been divided into plots and there is construction on all the plots. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court. If the petitioner had even a prima facie defence to show that there is no breach of condition of exemption some consideration would have been given as to whether there is a triable case. On the contrary the petitioner has been given more than reasonable opportunity and he has chosen not to appear in the proceedings because he has no defence as nearly 100 houses have come up on the land for which only agricultural exemption was given. ( 6 ) THUS it is clear that the petitioner has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause. He has failed to show cause; in fact the has no cause to show and the facts are too eloquent to answer. ( 7 ) THERE is no failure of justice there is no illegality in the impugned order. Since rule is discharged with costs. Interim relief vacated. (NAP) Rule discharged. .