J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, a short question which has come up for adjudication is whether the order of the competent, authority dated 20. 11. 1987 which came to be confirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 25. 10. 1989 declaring 193. 75 sq. mts. of land as excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (ulc Act for short) is legal and valid or not. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had submitted a statement in form I under Section 6 (1) of the ULC act disclosing therein five properties out of which one being residential bungalow and other four properties being commercial complexes. Respondent No. 1-competent authority after holding an inquiry held on 20. 11. 1987 that land to the extent of 193. 75 sq. mts. was excess land. However, the order of the competent authority came to be questioned by filing an appeal by the petitioner under section 33 of the ULC Act, by filing appeal No. 48/88 before the appellate authority. The appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 25. 10. 1989 confirming the order of the competent authority. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE petitioner had stated in his statement under section 6 (1) of the ULC Act that one of the five properties is residential property and remaining four are commercial complexes. He also contended before the competent authority that the area of the land on which construction is made or raised cannot be treated as vacant land. However, this submission was rejected by the competent authority which came to be confirmed in appeal. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has produced documentary evidence in support of the contention that the construction was raised in 1962 by obtaining permission for construction from the Municipal Corporation. A copy of the permission to construct is produced. Further documentary evidence is also produced to show that construction was made at the relevant point of time much prior to 1976 and to show that construction was raised. It is true that the petitioner had also stated in his statement in form I under section 6 (1) which came to be filed on 13. 8. 1976 that construction was made on the land in question. It is true that the petitioner had also stated in his statement in form I under section 6 (1) which came to be filed on 13. 8. 1976 that construction was made on the land in question. Five properties were disclosed in the form and one of them was shown as residential bungalow and remaining four as commercial properties. If the contention of the petitioner that land on which construction is made is accepted, then, in that case, there would not be excess land. Reliance is placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Smt Meera Gupta vs. State of W. B. , AIR 1992 SC, 1567. In that case, the apex court has held while interpreting provisions of sections 4 (9), 11, 2 (q) and 5 that the land on which construction commenced or concluded on the appointed day, is required to be excluded from the expression vacant land. It is very clear from the aforesaid decision that the land occupied by any building in area where there arc building regulations, which has been constructed upon or was under construction on the appointed day, with approval of the appropriate authority and the land appurtenant to such building is not included in the expression vacant land. ( 5 ) THE competent authority and the appellate authority both have unfortunately ignored this proposition of law. However, since the petitioner failed to produce relevant documentary evidence which came to be produced in the course of hearing of this petition showing that there was authorised construction on the land in question, the better course is to remand the matter to the competent authority with direction to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that notification under section 10 (3) has already been published. It may be noted that mere issuance of notification under section 10 (3) will not operate as fetter or impediment in deciding the case afresh in accordance with law. ( 6 ) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that notification under section 10 (3) has already been published. It may be noted that mere issuance of notification under section 10 (3) will not operate as fetter or impediment in deciding the case afresh in accordance with law. It is true that under section 10 (3), from the date of publication of notification under section 10 (3) in respect of excess vacant land, it would be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. It is found that after issuance of notification under sec. 10 (3), dated 18. 7. 1990, the petitioner filed an appeal before, the Urban Land Tribunal which came to be rejected on 27. 1. 1991. Thereafter, the petition came to be filed. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, and exercising discretionary, extraordinary and prerogative writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, while remanding the matter, it must be observed that proceedings beyond the stage of section 10 (2) taken by the respondent-authority obviously would not survive. The view taken by this court is also reinforced in the case of Samrathben Chokshi vs. State, 35 (1) GLR 203. The Division Bench of this court in that case following the ratio of the Full Bench decision in the case of Avanti Organisation vs. Competent authority, 1989 (1) GLR 586 , held that proceedings undertaken or processed under the ulc Act and prosecuted beyond the stage of section 10 (2) cannot survive. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his proprietary and constitutional right merely on the ground that proceedings have been prosecuted upto the stage of section 10 (3 ). Therefore, the petition is required to be allowed and the matter is required to be remanded holding that any proceedings beyond the stage of Section 10 (2) would not survive. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the competent authority with a direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including producing and leading of evidence. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the competent authority with a direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including producing and leading of evidence. The impugned order of the competent authority which came to be confirmed by the appellate authority is quashed and set aside. The competent authority shall decide the matter afresh as early as possible. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .