J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a co-operative society constituted under the provisions of the gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act for short ). The petitioner society has come into existence for the purpose of providing residential accommodation for its members who are members of weaker section. Upon a joint application made by sajjankunverba Jadeja and the petitioner society for grant of exemption under section 20 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULC Act for short), the state Government passed an order dated 27. 11. 1989 granting necessary exemption, a copy whereof is produced at annexure a. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-society wanted to purchase land for providing plots admeasuring 100 to 200 sq. mts. to each of its members. The said Jadeja was the owner of Survey numbers 158, 159 and 160 of village motavava admeasuring 7 acres and 3 gunthas. The aforesaid survey numbers are agricultural lands. Sajjankunverba Jadeja had applied before the Rajkot Urban development Authority (ruda for short) for permission to develop the land which was granted on 9. 2. 1990. The petitioner-Society purchased the lands in question by a registered sale deed dated 16. 8. 1990. District panchayat, Rajkot by an order dated 7. 8. 1990 granted permission to convert ag ricultural lands into non-agricultural purpose on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that members of the petitioner- society should complete the construction within two years. This condition No. 10 in the order of the State of Gujarat could not be complied with by the petitioner-Society. Therefore, the petitioner applied on 28. 8. 1991 for extension of time to complete the construction by its members within a period of two years. Request for extension of time was accepted and the State Government extended the period for a period of six months by an order dated 13. 1. 1992. On account of various reasons including drought which resulted into great shortage of water in the entire Rajkot district for even drinking water, the members of the petitioner-Society could not raise construction within the extended time. Consequently, the petitioner-Society requested for further extension of time vide its letter dated 29. 6. 1992. The State Government vide its order dated 7/8/1992 extended the period for completing the work, for a period of one year. Consequently, the petitioner-Society requested for further extension of time vide its letter dated 29. 6. 1992. The State Government vide its order dated 7/8/1992 extended the period for completing the work, for a period of one year. It is also the case of the petitioner that to approach the lands purchased by the Society, neither there was any approach road nor any bridge had been constructed by the District Panchayat and, therefore, it was not possible to construct in time. It is in this context that it was contended that extension of one year was insufficient. There was no electric supply. There was water shortage. Therefore, extension of time for a further period of two years was requested for by the petitioner vide its letter dated 21. 7. 1993. However, vide letter dated 29. 9. 1993, the competent authority addressed a letter to the petitioner -Society that the period for putting up construction had expired on 6. 8. 1993. Necessary documents had been supplied by the petitioner-Society to the competent authority after receipt of the aforesaid letter. ( 3 ) THE respondent-State of Gujarat has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner- society to explain as to why exemption granted in respect of the said land should not be cancelled in view of the breach of condition No. 10 like that non-completion of construction within the stipulated time for which extension of time was granted. The petitioner-Society filed reply on 29. 12. 1993. Further communication was also made. It was inter alia contended by them that the petitioner-Society was ready and willing to produce all necessary evidence to show that there was genuine difficulty in raising the construction within the stipulated time. It was, therefore, submitted by the society that further period of two years may be granted to complete the construction work by its members. Further representation was not favourably considered and the State government by its order dated 24. 8. 1995 cancelled the exemption granted to the petitioner. Hence, this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company Mr. Mehta has contended that the construction work could not be completed within the stipulated time as per the conditions of exemption on account of the reasons beyond control of the Society. It is, therefore, submitted that there was genuine case for further extension of 2 to 3 years. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company Mr. Mehta has contended that the construction work could not be completed within the stipulated time as per the conditions of exemption on account of the reasons beyond control of the Society. It is, therefore, submitted that there was genuine case for further extension of 2 to 3 years. There is no doubt about the fact that exemption was granted subject to the condition of completion of construction within two years failing which exemption was liable to cancellation. It is also not in dispute that construction is not raised or done within the time extended. There appears to be some genuine difficulties experienced by the petitioner society in raising dwelling units. There was no approach road to reach the land in question. It is now stated at bar that a bridge has been constructed by the Rajkot District Panchayat in 1994. It is true that nobody should be allowed to frustrate the object and spirit for which permission was granted. However, at the same time, it should also be considered that the weaker section of the society have started investing their hard earned funds and they are in possession of the land in question. There is justification in the contention of the petitioner-Society that construction could not be completed within the stipulated time on account of various contingencies. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is right in his contention that mere breach of condition to construct within the stipulated time should not be construed as enabling the authorities to cancel the permission. He also placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Highway Co-operative Society v. State of Gujarat, 1993 (2) GCD 880 (2) Jivanbhai C. Dalwadi v. State, 1994 (1) gcd 526 and (3) Kanaiyalal M. Sheth v. Competent authority, AIR 1994, Guj. 130 ( 5 ) IN light of the facts and circumstances, the present case is covered by the aforesaid decisions. There appears to be reasons beyond control of the petitioner which prevented it from complying with the conditions to complete the construction within the period of two years. Permission for exemption under Section 20 (1) of the ULC Act was on condition to complete the construction within two years time. Contravention of such condition in the present case cannot be said to be intentional. Permission for exemption under Section 20 (1) of the ULC Act was on condition to complete the construction within two years time. Contravention of such condition in the present case cannot be said to be intentional. There is reasonable and just explanation for not raising the construction within the stipulated time. ( 6 ) THE petition is required to be allowed quashing the impugned order. In light of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove and the aforesaid case-law, the impugned order of the respondent-State as at Annexure N to the petition dated 24. 8. 1995 cancelling the exemption with regard to the land in question is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the State government to consider the request for extension of 2 to 3 years for completion of work. The respondent shall hold an inquiry and will pass appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the representation of the petitioner for extension of time for 2 to 3 years and after giving an opportunity of hearing as early as possible. It will be open for the respondent to impose appropriate conditions while granting reasonable period by way of extension. Petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly. .