JUDGMENT : SUSHIL HARKAULI, J. 1. According to the record, the petitioner is the owner of land having an area of 28.22 1/2 acres out of which 11.79 acres is being used for the purpose of factory. A case bearing No. 87 of 1976 was initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 which has not been repealed in this State. The petitioner sought exemption u/s 20 of the Act but the same was rejected on 14.11.1986. 2. By the order dated 4.12.1987, 6.36 acres of the land was declared surplus u/s 9 and a Notification u/s 10(1) of the Act was issued vide letter No. 2351 dated 13.7.1988 for the said surplus and but the same was not published in the Official Gaze tin. 3. Because publication of Notification in the Official Gazette u/s 10(1) and thereafter u/s 10(3) of the Act is necessary, therefore on that ground the petitioner, after 20 years, filed a writ petit on being W.P.(C) No. 4669 of 2008 which was disposed of by the order dated 23.11.2009 directing the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad to decide the petitioner's representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.1.2010 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. A certified copy of that order has been filed along with this writ petition as the last annexure. In that order, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has held that factual possession of the land had been taken over and apparently constructions have also been made on part of the aforesaid surplus land. The petitioner prays that for want of the publication of the Gazette of the Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, the constructions should be removed and the land should be handed back to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has refused this prayer and has directed that the Notification be published in the Official Gazette now and adequate .compensation be paid to the petitioner for the surplus land which has been acquired. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has reasoned that there is no limitation for publication of the Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has reasoned that there is no limitation for publication of the Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 211 wherein it was held that the revisional power u/s 34 of the Act, for which no limitation was prescribed, should be exercised within reasonable time. 5. However, I am of the opinion that the said law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 34 of the Act will not apply in the present case. As stated above, the actual physical possession of the land has been taken over, constructions have been made on it. The petitioner kept, waiting quietly allowing time to elapse, therefore, in a way the petitioner itself is apparently responsible for the delay. 6. Moreover, taking the view suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would have very undesirable consequences. Considering the ground realities, it would encourage unscrupulous persons to persuade officers to sit over files, delay the publication of the Notification in the Gazette and thereafter raise these kinds of pleas, which would enable such unscrupulous litigant to continue to hold land in excess of the ceiling limit in utter violation of the statute. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for interference in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court giving the petitioner unfair advantage merely because of the technicalities of the lack of publication in the Gazette, particularly when the petitioner remained quiet watching the developments of possession being taken over, constructions being made during all these years. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the compensation amount should be enhanced. The compensation is determined according to the Section 11 of the Act. If compensation is not adequate, the land owner has the right under Sections 12 and 13 of the (sic) and if compensation is not paid within time the owner of the land may be entitled to interest under the statute. 9. Therefore, leaving those remedies open to the petitioner, if still available under law, this writ petition is dismissed.