R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Company challenges the order dated 1-11-1985 at Annexure-A to this petition passed by the Government rejecting the application of the petitioner for an exemption under Section 20 of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976, in respect of the land in question. ( 2 ) THE lands are situated in village utaran in District Surat and the petitioner-Company has its Paper Mills in these lands. The lands were given to western India Industrial Agencies Private limited by Sanad dated 7-9-1951 issued by the Collector, Surat, a copy of which is at Annexure-C to this petition, for the purpose of starting a pulp and paper factory. The Sanad was allowed to be transferred in the name of the petitioner by an order dated 14-7-1961 issued by the Collector Surat, a copy of which is at annexure-B to this petition and endorsement was made by the Collector, surat, oh 7-9-1961 below the original sanad evidencing that it was transferred by the order dated 14-7-1961 in favour of the petitioner. There is no dispute about the fact that these lands were given for the said Industrial purpose and that the petitioner-Company is holding the said lands for the Industrial purpose for which they were given. According to the petitioner-Company the total built up area as on 28-1-1976 was 129904. 56 sq. metres. The particulars are detailed in paragraph 5 of the petition. According to the petitioner, the entire land was utilised for the Industrial purpose and it was put to N. A. right from 1954. ( 3 ) THE Surat Urban Development authority came into existence in the year 1980 and before that, there was a village panchayat which according to the petitioner did not have any building regulations regarding sanction of building plans by the authority. On coming into force of the said Act from 28-1-1976, the petitioner made an application on 9-9- 1976 for an exemption under Section 20 of the said Act. The provisions of Section 20 empower the Government to exempt the vacant land from the provisions of chapter III subject to such conditions, as may be specified, on being satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do. The provisions of Section 20 empower the Government to exempt the vacant land from the provisions of chapter III subject to such conditions, as may be specified, on being satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do. The Government by its order dated 1-11-1985, a copy of which is at Annexure-A to this petition, rejected this application on the ground that despite several opportunities, the petitioner did not furnish the requisite particulars, namely, sanction of the plans of the building and the permission for construction granted in respect thereof as also the N. A. use permission. It was held in the impugned order that the information was sought for from the petitioner by letter dated 25-10-1982 followed by a reminder dated 8-12-1982 regarding the proof of authorised construction such as building plans, permission for construction (Raja chitthy) and order permitting NA. use of the lands; but this information was not supplied even after the subsequent reminders dated 15-9-1983, 5-12-1983, 9-3-1984, 12-4-1984, 7-6-1984, 1-8- 1984, 23-8-1984, 10-12-1984 and 3-1- 1985. The Government found that instead of sending the above information the petitioner sent a letter on 12-1-1985 informing the Government that the secretary, Housing and Urban development Department was requested to change the zone. According to the petitioner, originally the lands were shown in agricultural zone but after the request was made by the petitioner they were shown as hazardous industries zone. The authority deciding the application under Section 20 held that even during personal hearing on 8-8-1985 the petitioner was not able to show any authorised construction plans, "raja chitthy", and the order granting N. A. use of the said lands. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has brought on record that it had responded to the letter dated 25-10-1982 by which the information was sought for from the petitioner and had from time to time supplied the material to the authority to show that the building was in existence much prior to 20-1-1976 and that the lands were being used for industrial purpose. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the petition that on receiving the letter dated 25-10-1982 the petitioner had sent a reply by registered post A. D. on 30-3-1983, furnishing all the information asked for by the authority. The petitioner had submitted along with the letter copy of which is at annexure-F to this petition, a copy of the industrial licence. The petitioner had submitted along with the letter copy of which is at annexure-F to this petition, a copy of the industrial licence. The impugned order makes no reference to the said reply, dated 30-3-1983 which was sent by registered post A. D. to the Government. The petitioner also forwarde an affidavit of the Managing Director by its letter dated 23-4-1984, a copy of which is at annexure-G to the petition. In response to the letter dated 1-5-1983 the petitioner sent a reply dated 27-5-1983 and copy of which is at Annexure-I to the petition. The petitioner also sent letter dated 26-7- 1988, a copy of which is at Annexure-J to the petition along with the copies of documents mentioned thereof to show that the land was put to N. A. " use from 1954. A certificate of the gram panchayat certifying the construction was also attached with this letter. According to the petitioner the village panchayat did not have any building regulations requiring sanction of building plans. A site plan was submitted to the Government by the petitioner along with its letter dated 24-8- 1983, a copy of which is at Annexure-K to the petition, in order to show that the building was constructed prior to 28-1- 1976. It is surprising that, there is absolutely no reference to this material in the impugned order by which the application of the petitioner was rejected simply on the ground that sanction building plans, permission for construction and permission for N. A. use were not produced. ( 5 ) UNDER Section 2 (g) (ii) it is inter alia provides that the expression "vacant land" does not include any area where there are building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before or being constructed on, the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority and the land appurtenant to such building. The expression "approval of appropriate authority" enables an inquiry into the fact whether the building was authorised by the local authority or not as as per the building regulations applicable in the area in question. Production of approved building plans would be a direct way of showing that the building was constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority. The expression "approval of appropriate authority" enables an inquiry into the fact whether the building was authorised by the local authority or not as as per the building regulations applicable in the area in question. Production of approved building plans would be a direct way of showing that the building was constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority. However, in case of an old building, where approved sanction plans are not forthcoming, the applicant can in support of his application under Section 20, rely upon other evidence to show that the building was constructed before the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority. An application under section 20 for exemption cannot be mechanically rejected simply on the ground that the sanction of the local authority is not produced to show that the construction was authorised. There may be other reliable evidence to show that the construction was authorised. In case of an old building where the formal sanction order is not forthcoming, there can be evidence which may show that municipal taxes were paid to the local authority over a long period prior to the appointed day, that drainage and services were provided to the built-up property by the local authority and that the building has existed prior to the appointed day for a very long time coupled with the fact that over a very long period the local authority has not taken any action on the ground that the construction was authorised and has treated it as authorised. The material may also disclose that the actual construction is in consonance with the building Rules and Regulations which were existing at the relevant time. Therefore, if the Government is satisfied from any such reliable evidence, then an inference can safely be drawn that the building which was existing since prior to the appointed day was constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority. Requirement of Section 2 (g) (ii) of the said act would be satisfied even in such a case. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has in the present case also raised a contention that there were no building regulations in the area where the building were constructed by the petitioner, as, at that time there was a village Panchayat which had not framed any building regulations. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has in the present case also raised a contention that there were no building regulations in the area where the building were constructed by the petitioner, as, at that time there was a village Panchayat which had not framed any building regulations. Therefore, the question also arose whether the provisions of clause (ii) of Section 2 (g) were attracted in the petitioners case or not. The Government has therefore not taken into consideration the relevant material which was placed before it and has committed an error in rejecting the application simply on the ground that the sanction plan was not produced, without taking into account the fact that the petitioner had sent several letters with the material in support of its contention that there was already a building in existence prior to the appointed day which cannot be treated as vacant land. The fact that the land was being used for industrial purpose was also a relevant aspect which was required to be considered by the government. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh decision in light of the material already produced by the petitioner in support of its application under Section 20 of the Act and such other material that may be produced after the remand. ( 8 ) THE impugned order dated 1-11- 1985 at Annexure-A to the petition is therefore set aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner made under Section 20 (1 ) (a) for exemption afresh and take a decision thereon in according with law. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .