M. R. CALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 4-1-1994 annexure "c" passed by the respondent rejecting the petitioners Application dated 15-4-1993 to retain the land of his choice found to be permissible to be retained by them within permissible limits under the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976) hereinafter referred to as the Act". ( 2 ) THE petitioners submitted Form No. 1 as required under Section 6 (1) of the act. The total holding of the petitioners was found to be 11736 sq. mt. of S. No. 29671 situated in Mouje Danteshwar of baroda. Form No. 1 was finalised by the respondent and it was declared that the petitioners was having excess land to the extent of 10328 sq. mt. and accordingly they were allowed to retain the land to the extent of 1408 sq. mt. behind Pinfield industry. These proceedings with regard to the finalisalion of Farm No. 1 were over on 26-4-1985 and after a period of about 8 years, the petitioner moved an application on 15-4-1993 to change the site of the 1408 sq. mt. land behind pinfield Industry and the petitioners request was for change of the site, so that he may retain 1408 sq. mt. of the land at some other place. This Application dated 15-4-1993 has been rejected by the competent Authority and Additional collector (Urban Land Ceiling ). Baroda by the order dated 4-1-1994, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this special Civil Application filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were entitled to retain the land permissible within the ceiling limits according to their choice, as the land behind the Pinfield Industry was not suitable to petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Allahabad High court reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 103 in the case of Beni Prasad v. The district Judge, Allahabad and he has invited my attention to para 6 of the aforesaid Judgment. The learned A. G. P. Mr. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Allahabad High court reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 103 in the case of Beni Prasad v. The district Judge, Allahabad and he has invited my attention to para 6 of the aforesaid Judgment. The learned A. G. P. Mr. Uraizee has argued that the petitioners moved the Application on 15- 4-1993 after a period of about 8 years at a stage when the proceedings for payment of compensation had also started and at this juncture, when the proceedings for award of compensation under Section 11 were at hand, there is no question of accepting the petitioners Association dated 15-4-1993. He has also submitted that the petitioners did not approach the gujarat Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal and has straightaway filed this Petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. Section 8 of the Act provides for the preparation of the draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit and sub-clause (3) of Section 8 provides that the draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof. It is not the case of the petitioners that no such draft statement regarding the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit had been prepared and issued by the concerned authority. Nor it is the case of the petitioners that such draft statement had not been served together with a notice inviting objections to the draft statement or that the petitioners had filed any such objections within thirty days of the service of such a notice. The pleadings in the Special Civil Application on this aspect of the matter are not at all there. The pleadings in the Special Civil Application on this aspect of the matter are not at all there. While there is total absence of any pleadings with regard to the violation of section 8 even on factual aspects, no return whatsoever has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been noticed by this Court that while the special Civil Applications in all these urban Land Ceiling matters are pending in this Court since 1982-1983 no return has been filed on behalf of the respondents in any of the matters and so is the position in the present case. It is a dismal tact that even in the Ceiling matters, which must be the matters of importance and priority for the State, the respondents are absolutely indifferent and they do not even care to file replies on factual aspects of the matter. In absence of the proper replies and returns to the factual allegations in a given case while the interest of the Government itself may suffer, at least the Court is invariably handicapped because proper assistance on factual aspects of the matter is also not rendered to the Court creating a difficult situation in the matter of discharging the duty to administer justice. Such a practice is not at all commendable and this Court strongly depricates the practice of such an indifferent attitude taken by the various litigant like Welfare State. With the battery of the Officers and the Law officers, it should not be difficult for the respondent-State to file at least brief replies on factual aspects, even if no detailed parawise reply is filed. The respondents should therefore, be well advised to take these words hopefully expressed by this Court to the responsive government in future and it is expected that appropriate action shall be taken in this regard at the Government level, not only in the litigation with regard to this particular Department but in all the departments of the Government. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, the fact remains that in the case at hand at the stage of section 8 and even at the lime when the possession of the land was taken, the petitioner did not file objections and it is only in the year 1993 that they suddenly woke up and approached the authorities to allow them to retain the land of their choice. Since the Special Civil application was filed in 1994 and the rule had been issued after notice, even if the argument of the learned A. G. P. that the petitioners have not availed the remedy of filing Appeal, is not made the ground to reject this Special Civil application on merits itself no case is made out in favour of the petitioners so as to set aside the order Annexure "c" dated 4-1-1994, wherein it has been reasoned out by the Competent Authority and the Additional Collector (Urban Land ceiling), Baroda that proceedings have been finalised on 26-4-1985 and the possession of the excess land had also been taken on 22-7-1987 and now the proceedings with regard to the payment of the compensation were at hand and at this stage the Application dated 15-4- 1993, so as to allow the petitioners to retain the land of their choice, could not be accepted. The decision of the allahabad High Court in the case of Beni prasad (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsellor the petitioners, is of no avail to them for the simple reason that this decision is an authority only for the limited purpose that even if the choice with regard to the retaining of the land is not given at the stage of submitting the Form for the purpose of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act, such choice could be made by the party even at the stage when the draft statement is prepared and issued and a notice inviting objections is served upon the party as required under Section 8 (3 ). Here is a case in which what to talk of the stage of Section 8 even the stage of section 10 appears to have already passed because it is mentioned in the order annexure "c" that even the possession of the excess land had been taken with reference to Section 10 and at this stage the proceedings under Section 11 of the act were at hand. ( 6 ) THE upshot of the aforesaid adjudication is that no interference is warranted with the impugned order dated 4-1-1994. This Special Civil Application fails and the Rule is hereby discharged with no order as to costs. ( 6 ) THE upshot of the aforesaid adjudication is that no interference is warranted with the impugned order dated 4-1-1994. This Special Civil Application fails and the Rule is hereby discharged with no order as to costs. ( 7 ) THE copy of this judgment may be forthwith sent to the Chief Secretary for the State of Gujarat so that he may sent the copies of this Judgment to the secretaries of all the Departments, Heads of the Departments and Heads of the offices of the State of Gujarat in order to see that affidavits-in-replies are filed in time in all the cases filed against the State of Gujarat. Rule discharged. .