A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent no. 2 herein) on 22nd July, 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Additional Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on 17th February, 1987 in Appeal Nos. Surat-159 and 183 both of 1983 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of petitioner No. 1 to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 3982. 40 square metres approximately. ( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. Petitioner No. 1 and one Kundanmal Saubhagyachand (the Third party for convenience) jointly held certain properties within the urban agglomeration of Surat. They therefore filed a declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a draft statement came to be prepared and came to be served to the holders. They appear to have filed their objections thereto. After hearing the parties, by his common order passed on 22nd July, 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Act, respondent No. 2 inter alia came to the conclusion, that the holding of petitioner No. 1 herein was in excess of the ceiling limit by 3982. 40 square metres approximately. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. That aggrieved petitioner No. 1 herein. He therefore carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 1 under Section 33 of the Act. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Surat-159 of 1983. It appears that the Third party was also aggrieved by the order at annexure-A to this petition. He also carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 1 by means of his Appeal No. Surat-183 of 1983. Since both the appeals arose from the common order at Annexure-A to this petition, by his common order passed on 17th february, 1987 in both the aforesaid appeals, respondent No. l dismissed them. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. That aggrieved the present petitioners. Since both the appeals arose from the common order at Annexure-A to this petition, by his common order passed on 17th february, 1987 in both the aforesaid appeals, respondent No. l dismissed them. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. That aggrieved the present petitioners. They have therefore approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition to the extent it pertains to their holding. ( 3 ) ). So far as the constructed properties included in the holding of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the submission urged before me by Shri Majmudar for the petitioners deserves to be accepted to the effect that such constructed properties need not be included in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Gupta vs. State of West bengal, reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court at page 1567. ( 4 ) ). That would leave only one property bearing survey No. 290 admeasuring 10324 square metres situated at village Bhestan taluka Choryasi District Surat (thedisputed land for convenience ). It was jointly held by petitioner No. 1 and the Third party. The share of petitioner No. 1 therein was rightly taken to be 5362 square metres. ( 5 ) ). The lower authorities rightly rejected the contention urged on behalf of petitioner no. 1 to the effect that the remaining two petitioners have also interests therein. The reason therefore is quite simple. On scrutiny of the evidence on record the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the disputed land was a self-acquired property in the hands of petitioner No. 1. That is a pure finding of fact. This Court cannot interfere with it in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in view of the binding ruling of the supreme Court in the case of Mohd Yunus vs. Mohd Mustaqim, reported in AIR 1984 supreme Court at page 38. ( 6 ) ). As rightly observed by both the authorities below, there was one more circumstance on the record for reaching the conclusion that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 did not have any interests in the disputed land. ( 6 ) ). As rightly observed by both the authorities below, there was one more circumstance on the record for reaching the conclusion that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 did not have any interests in the disputed land. In the declaration in the prescribed form under section 6 (1) of the Act made by petitioner No. 1 nowhere the interest of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the disputed land was shown. In that view of the matter, the lower authorities were right in their conclusion that the disputed land belonged to none but petitioner No. 1 alone. ( 7 ) ). I find no merit or substance in the submissions urged before me by Shri Majmudar for the petitioners to the effect that the disputed land is adjacent to the railway line and no construction would be permissible therein according to the Building Regulations prevalent in that area. The reason therefore is simple. Such a point was never canvassed before respondent No. 2. It was canvassed before respondent No. 1 at the appellate stage without bringing on record any material in support of that contention. Even before me, it is not shown now construction in the disputed land is not permissible on account of its being adjacent to the railway line. No Building Regulations prohibiting such construction have been brought to my notice. Even that apart, it is not shown what is the distance between the railway line and the disputed land. ( 8 ) ). It is again not possible for me to accept the submission urged before me by Shri majmudar for the petitioners to the effect that the authorities below did not take note of the existing construction in the disputed land. This point has been taken for the first time before this Court in this petition. It is a plea based on some factual position and such a plea cannot be permitted to be taken for the first time in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Besides, there is no material on record to show or to suggest that the construction in the disputed land was in existence prior to coming into force of the Act. Shri Chhaya for the respondents has on instructions stated before me that the petitioners have allowed unauthorised constructions to come up in the disputed land. Shri Chhaya for the respondents has on instructions stated before me that the petitioners have allowed unauthorised constructions to come up in the disputed land. Shri majmudar for the petitioners pleads ignorance on this aspect. He is unable to inform me as to whether or not the petitioners have or any of them has taken any steps for eviction of such unauthorised occupants from the disputed land. The aforesaid submission urged before me by Shri Majmudar cannot therefore be accepted. ( 9 ) ). In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmd in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition cannot be sustained in law in toto. It deserves to be modified by declaring that the holding of petitioner No. 1 is in excess of the ceiling limit by 3862 square metres as against 3982. 40 square metres approximately as found by the lower authorities. The matter deserves to be remanded to respondent No. 2 for preparing the final statement under Section 9 (1) of the act in the light of this judgment of mine after giving an opportunity to petitioner No. 1 for selection of the excess land to be surrendered. ( 10 ) ). In the result, this petition is partly accepted to the aforesaid extent. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Surat (respondent No. 2 herein) on 22nd July, 1983 pertaining to the holding of petitioner No. 1 at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the common appellate order passed by the Additional Urban Land Tribunal at ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on 17th February, 1987 inter alia in Appeal No. Surat-159 of 1983 at Annexure-B to this petition is modified by declaring that the holding of petitioner No. 1 is in excess of the ceiling limit by 3862 square metres and not 3982. 40 square metres approximately. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 for talcing further action in the light of this judgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .