A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE persons who have chosen to take law in their hands have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievance for not sanctioning their Scheme under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Acts 1976 (the Ceiling Act for brief ). The question that would arise would be whether or not this Court can help such persons. ( 2 ) THE contoversy arising in this petition centres round two parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 78 and 79 situated at Ghatlodia in Ahmedabad (the disputed lands for convenience ). They were included in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Ghatlodia Ahmedabad City and have been allotted final Plot Nos. 75 and 76. The petitioners were the owners thereof. They also own certain other parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 29 37 38 46 54 77 215 199 200 223 226 221 218 and 219 It appears that their holding was in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the Ceiling Act. They appear to have floated a scheme for construction of the residential units for the weaker section of the society (each unit admeasuring between 40 square metres and 80 square metres) on the disputed lands. They appear to have made the necessary-application in the prescribed form under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act on 5 September 1976. During the pendency of the aforesaid application it appears that the petitioners made an application on 23rd August 1978 to the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (the AUDA for convenience) constituted under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 (the Town Planning Act for brief) for obtaining the necessary permission for development of the disputed lands. I think this they could not have done before the necessary permission under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act was granted to them. I appears that the plan submitted to the AUDA was found deficient in certain respects and the deficiencies were supplied and the rectified plan was submitted to the AUDA on 19th October 1978 In the meantime it appears that the competent authority dealing with their application under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act appears to have found some defects in the said application. Thereupon it appears that they submitted a fresh application in the prescribed form under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act on 23rd March 1979. While the fresh application was pending the petitioners went ahead with their scheme on the basis that the development permission was granted as no reply was received from the AUDA pursuant to their application after submission of the rectified plan on 19th October 1978. It appears that the AUDA had taken exception to the construction activity undertaken by the petitioners on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary development permission. This petition has nothing to do with the dispute between the AUDA and the present petitioner. They appear to have proceeded with the construction work on the disputed lands. . As a result 349 eons. houses each admeasuring 40 square metres and 2 houses each admeasuring 80 square metres were constructed on the disputed lands. In the meantime respondent No. 1 issued one circular on 13 June 1979 for regularising unauthorised constructions without obtaining the necessary exemption under Section 20 or without obtaining the permission under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It transpires from a bare perusal thereof that such unauthorised constructions were to be regularised by giving the necessary exemption to the lands on which such constructions were standing under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act on payment of some fine it such construction wore raised without permission after 28th January 1976 In the meanwhile the application made by the petitioners under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act came up for hearing and disposal before the competent authority (respondent No. 2 herein ). It appears that respondent No. 2 imposed fine of Rs. 38 605. 85 paise for raising the unauthorised constructions on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. It may be mentioned at this stage that as transpiring from the Order-in-Appeal the amount of fine imposed by the competent authority was to the tune of Rs. 3 86 57 Be as that it may the competent authority imposed some fine for raising the constructions on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners made no attempt to pay up the fine. 3 86 57 Be as that it may the competent authority imposed some fine for raising the constructions on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners made no attempt to pay up the fine. Thereupon by his order passed on 19th March 1981 with respect the aforesaid application made by the petitioners respondent No. 2 herein rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority (respondent No. 3 herein) under Section 33 of the Ceiling Act. By his order passed on 5th March 1982 in the aforesaid appeal the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the amount of fine imposed by the competent authority on the petitioners with respect to the unauthorised constructions raised by the petitioner on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act was not properly calculated in accordance with the guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 as reflected in the circular at Annexure-A to this petition and as such the matter was remanded to respondent No. 2 herein for his fresh decision according to law in the light of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition. A copy of the appellate order is at Annexure-C to this petition. By the time the matter was taken up for fresh disposal by respondent No. 2 herein the circular at Annexure-A to this petition came to be rescinded by one circular issued by respondent No. 1 herein on 12th May 1982. Thereupon by Ins order passed on 29th September 1984 with respect to the application made by the petitioners under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act respondent No. 2 rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Scheme for which the aforesaid application was made by the petitioners herein was rejected on two grounds namely the unauthorised construction was made on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act and also on the ground that even under the circular at Annexure-A to this petition it was for the State Government to grant the necessary exemption from the operation of the Ceiling Act under Section 20 (1) thereof qua the disputed lands. The aggrieved petitioners thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 herein at Annexure-D to this petition. While issuing Rule of this petition by its order passed on 1st January 1985 this Court directed the petitioners herein to prefer an appeal against the impugned order at Annexure-D to this petition. Apropos the made an appeal before respondent No. 3 herein. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Ahmedabad 45 of 1985. By his order passed on 30th January 1986 in the aforesaid appeal respondent No. 3 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-E to his petition. Thereupon the petitioners sought leave to amend the petition for challenging the appellate order at Annexure-E to this petition. After obtaining the necessary leave the petition has come to be amended and the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 has also come to be challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) KUM. Thereupon the petitioners sought leave to amend the petition for challenging the appellate order at Annexure-E to this petition. After obtaining the necessary leave the petition has come to be amended and the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 has also come to be challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) KUM. shah for the petitioners has submitted that having imposed fine on the basis of incorrect calculation in disregard of the guidelines contained in the circular at Annexure-A to this petition respondent No. 2 after remand could not have rejected the scheme under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act only on the ground that the circular at Annexure-A to this petition had come to be rescinded subsequently on 12th May 1982 She has further urged that in any case if respondent No. 2 was of the view that the petitioners ought to have obtained exemption under Section 20 (1) of the Ceiling Act in terms of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition respondent No. 2 could not have rejected the application made by the petitioners under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act without examining whether or not the scheme submitted for the purpose was in accordance with law As against this Shri Champaneri for the respondents has urged that the competent authority was justified in rejecting the application made by the petitioners under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act as the circular at Annexure-A to this petition had come to be rescinded on 12th May 1982 before the date of the impunged order at Annexure-D to this petition According to Shri Champaneri for the respondents since the circular at Annexure-A to this petition had come to be rescinded respondent No 2 herein could not have followed the direction given by the appellate authority in the appellate order at Annexure-C to this petition ( 4 ) THE undisputed fact-situation emerging from the record is to the effect that the petitioners went ahead with the construction work on the disputed lands without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act. With a view not to jeopardising the interests of the weaker section occupying the dwelling units constructed without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act respondent No. 1 appears to have issued the circular at Annexure-A to this petition It appears that the circular at Annexure-A to this petition emboldened the present petitioners to move ahead with the construction work without waiting for the development permission under the Town Planning Act as also without wailing for the necessary permission from respondent No 2 under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act Il appears that respondent No. 1 might have realised that Section 24 of the Ceiling Act was capable of taking care of the interests of the weaker section of the society and that the circular at Annexure-A to this petition was misused by the persons like the present petitioners respondent No. 1 rescinded the circular issued on 12th May 1982. It thus becomes clear that when the matter was taken up by respondent No 2 for the necessary orders with respect to the application made by the petitioners under Section 21 (1) or the Ceiling Act the circular at Annexure-A to this petition was not in existence Respondent No 2 could not have therefore disposed of the case in the light of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition despite the direction given to him under the appellate order at Annexure-C to this petition in view of the binding ruling of this Court in the case of Narayanbhai Rambhai vs. State reported in 1985 (1) 26 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter at page 531. ( 5 ) ORDINARILY the submission urged before me by Kum. Shah for the petitioner to the effect that no subordinate officer can disregard the direction issued by his superior officer or Tribunal in appeal has to be accepted Il has been rightly observed by that great philosopher Cicero To be wiser than law is the very thing condemned by good law In every judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings the law is that a subordinate authority has to follow the direction issued by his superior or appellate authority No subordinate officer can be permitted to disregard any direction issued to him with respect to the quasi-judicial function performed by him by his superior or appellate authority. However in the instant ease respondent No 2 could not be blamed for not following the direction issued by the appellate authority in the appellate order at Annexure-C to this petition for the simple reason that the circular at Annexure-A to this petition lost its existence after the matter was taken up pursuant to the appellate order at Annexure-C to this petition. ( 6 ) I think respondent No. 2 was justified in observing that it was it was for the petitioners to have moved respondent No. 1 for obtaining exemption under Section 20 (1) of the Ceiling Act in terms of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition and it was not for respondent No 2 to consider the grant of such exemption I am unable to agree with the submission urged before me by Kum Shah for the petitioners to the effect that respondent No 2 was competent to accept the application under Section 21 (1) of the Ceiling Act in the light of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition A bare look at the title of the circular would go to show that it was issued for regularisation or the unauthorised constructions without obtaining the necessary exemption under Section 20 or without obtaining the permission under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act Para-4 thereof goes to show that the result of such unauthorised construction would be vesting of the excess land in the State Government and it could have taken action under Section 23 of the Ceiling Act Instead the State Government thought it to grant exemption to such lands under section 20 thereof with respect to the unauthorised constructions raised thereon the conditions set out therein Para 7 thereof also makes it clear that the decision would be taken by the State Government keeping in mind the guidelines contained in that circular In that view of the matter there is no escape from the conclusion that under the circular at Annexure-A to this petition respondent No. 1 had reserved to itself the power to grant exemption to the lands on which the construction had cropped up without obtaining the necessary exemption under Section 20 or without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act Simply because the earlier competent authority misinterpreted it and imposed fine for regularisation of such construction is no ground to come to the conclusion that the State Government had delegated its powers to the competent authority for the purpose of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition The petitioners have averred in para 7 of this petition that the respondent No 2 has applied the circular at Annexure-A to this petition with respect to several cases and the unauthorised constructions have been regularised by several competent authorities. If that is so done in my humble opinion the competent authority or the competent authorities as the case may be travelled beyond the scope of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition Simply because respondent No 2 has so done or other competent authorities have so done is no ground to perpetuate such illegality In that view of the matter no fault can be found with the observation made by respondent No 2 in his impunged order at Annexure-D to this petition to the effect that the petitioners ought to have moved the State Government under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act for the purpose of claiming exemption qua the disputed lands in terms of the circular at Annexure-A to this petition. ( 7 ) THESE were the only points urged in support of this petition I have found no merits or substance in any of them The impugned order at Annexure-D to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-E to this petition calls for no interference by this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ( 8 ) IN the result this petition fails it is hereby rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. Petition Rejected. .