Judgment 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 21.03.1988 passed by respondent no.2 herein, cancelling the NA permission granted to the petitioner association as well as order dated 10.10.1988 passed by respondent No.1 herein, rejecting the Revision Application filed by the petitioner herein and thereby confirmed the order of respondent No.2 herein. 1.1 Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Mehta, learned advocate for Mr. Pinakin M. Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a non-trading corporation duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Nontrading Corporation Act and the members of the petitioner's association are belonging to poor and economical backward class of the society. One Shri Gemaji Motiji and others were holding different lands admeasuring in total 25 Acres and O Gunaths of Block Nos. 595, 597, 605, 604, 598, 609, admeasuring 94191 Sq.Mtrs of village Adalaj, Taluka and District Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the lands in question' for short). In January, 1982, Gemaji Motiji and others had applied for NA permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) and vide order dated 18.03.1982, respondent No.2 had granted permission under Section 65 of the Code on various terms and conditions, stated therein. As per condition No.9 of the said order dated 18.03.1982, the construction was required to be started within six months from the date of the approval of the plans and within three years, the construction work will have to be completed and as the plans were already been sanctioned at the instance of Gemaji Motiji, on the date of the said order dated 18.03.1982, the construction work was therefore, required to be completed by 18.03.1985. In the month of November, 1984, the petitioner association had purchased the aforesaid lands in question from Gemaji Motiji and others by registered sale deed. The petitioner association had applied for extension of time to complete the construction vide application dated 10.03.1985 as the plans were required to be changed as per the petitioner's requirement. As referred above, period of three years for completing the construction work in terms of NA permission was over on 18.03.1985. The petitioner association had applied for extension of time to complete the construction vide application dated 10.03.1985 as the plans were required to be changed as per the petitioner's requirement. As referred above, period of three years for completing the construction work in terms of NA permission was over on 18.03.1985. The period of three months was over on 10.06.1985 from the date of application for extension of time i.e. 10.03.1985 submitted by the petitioner, however, respondent No.2 did not respond in any manner to the said application dated 10.03.1985 of the petitioner. On 21.08.1985, NA permission was transferred to the petitioner and mutation entry No.7100 dated 21.08.1985 came to be mutated in the village revenue record. On 03.03.1986, the petitioner made another application for extension of time for a further period of three years and the said application also refers to the previous application dated 10.03.1985 and it was stated therein that the construction work was awaiting certain steps, which were beyond the control of the petitioner and hence, the delay has occurred. 2.2 Thereafter, the period of three months was over on 03.06.1986, from the date of second application for extension of time i.e. 03.03.1986, submitted by the petitioner, however, respondent No.2 did not respond in any manner to the said application dated 03.03.1986 of the petitioner. In the year 1986-87, drought condition prevailed in Gujarat and as a matter of fact, water was not available for construction and as the financial condition of the members of the petitioner association was very weak, they were unable to pay their contribution for the purpose of continuing the construction. Moreover, to meet with the said financial crises, the petitioner association had approached different financial institutions, but as no fund was available, the petitioner could not arrange finance during that period. 3. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that instead of responding to the applications of the petitioner dated 10.03.1985 and 03.3.1986 for extension of time to complete the construction, respondent No.2 has issued a notice dated 17.11.1987 to show cause why on the basis of breach of condition No.9 of NA order dated 18.03.1982, the NA permission dated 18.03.1982 be not cancelled and why fine should not be imposed under Section 67 of the Code. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that as such on account of failure of respondent No.2 to inform the petitioner regarding respondent No.2's decision on the applications dated 10.03.1985 and 03.03.1986, within a period of three months, the said permission sought for was deemed to have been granted under Section 65(2) of the Code and in that view of the matter, during the extended period (which would expire either on 10.03.1988 or 03.03.1989), respondent No.2 could not have issued the show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987 referred hereinabove. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner gave its reply dated 08.12.1987 to the show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, but after the issuance of show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, the office of respondent No.2 without waiting for the reply, had carried out the inspection and made ex-parte Panchnama dated 21.11.1987 of the lands in question, which showed that there was excavation done on some of the plots of lands in question and as such there was no construction. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has then submitted that order dated 21.03.1988 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the NA permission and also ordering eviction of the petitioner under Section 79A of the Code, for which in fact there was no show-cause notice, has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring Revision Application before respondent No.1 being Revision Application No.03 of 1988. Respondent No.1 also without considering the grounds raised in the memo of revision and the grounds urged at the time of hearing, passed an order dated 10.10.1988, whereby dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 21.03.1988. Learned advocate for the petitioner has then submitted that the petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No.610 of 1988 and challenged the judgment and orders dated 21.03.1988 and 10.10.1988 and also challenged vires of the provisions of the Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1960 and the petitioner was protected by interim order passed in the said Special Civil Application No.610 of 1988. He has then submitted during the pendency of the said Special Civil Application No.610 of 1988 the Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1960, came to be repealed and in view of the repealed of the Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1960, the said Special Civil Application No.610 of 1988, was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 30.06.2006, with a liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action to challenge the correctness and validity of the impugned action and the interim relief was ordered to be continued upto 16.07.2006. He has then submitted that on 17.07.2006, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application, wherein, notice has been issued and respondents were directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the lands in question and thereafter, on 19.09.2006, Rule has been issued, making it returnable on 6th December, 2006 and interim relief is ordered to be continued. 3.2 The prayers sought for in the present petition read as under: “7.0[a] a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.03.1988 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A and the order dated 10.10.1988 at Annexure-B passed by the 1st respondent. [b] Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, an interim stay restraining the respondents, their agents from operating and implementing the order dated 21.03.1988 at Annexure-A passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 10.10.1988 at Annexure-B passed by the 1st respondent may kindly be granted. [c] …... [d] …....” 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the impugned orders dated 21.03.1988 and 10.10.1988 respectively at Annexure-”A” and Annexure-”B” of the petition have been passed in breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the members of the petitioner association, who are going to be affected by the impugned orders, have neither been served upon with the show-cause notice nor have they heard before passing the impugned orders. Learned advocate for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to order dated 21.03.1988 passed by respondent No.2 has vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 in his said order has observed that the proceeding under Section 79A of the Code would be initiated for eviction of the petitioner as the petitioner is not an agriculturist. Learned advocate for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to order dated 21.03.1988 passed by respondent No.2 has vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 in his said order has observed that the proceeding under Section 79A of the Code would be initiated for eviction of the petitioner as the petitioner is not an agriculturist. He has further submitted that the petitioner was never called upon to show cause as to why the proceeding under Section 79A of the Code should not be initiated and thereby, respondent No.2 has violated the principles of natural justice and passed the illegal order, which is under challenge. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that impugned order dated 21.03.1988 was passed on the ground that the constructions are not completed with a view to earn more profit. He has submitted that there is no material on record to support the aforesaid finding so far as the present case is concerned and both the authorities have not taken into consideration that the cancellation of the permission is the last resort and should be made only when the imposition of fine would not serve the purpose and as such it was open for the authorities either to impose the fine or to take other action while taking the final decision. But, in the case on hand, no reasons whatsoever are stated by the authorities that the imposition of fine would not serve the purpose, instead of that, harsh penalty of cancellation of the original order is imposed, which would definitely result into serious repercussion upon the members because the members, who have invested their life savings, will be deprived of their lands for residential purpose. As the above referred aspect of the case has not been taken into consideration by respondents before passing the impugned orders, the same are required to be set aside. 3.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court. (i) 1997 (2) GLH 633 , Dahyabhai Laldas through heirs V/s. State of Gujarat & another. (ii) 1996(2)GLH (UJ) 34, Aksa Cooperative Housing Society Limited V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. (iii) Judgment and order dated 21.12.2004 in Special Civil Application No.15396 of 2004. (iv) Judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No.699 of 2011. (v) 2005(9) GHJ 70 Jayantibhai Babalbhai Darji V/s. State of Gujarat. (ii) 1996(2)GLH (UJ) 34, Aksa Cooperative Housing Society Limited V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. (iii) Judgment and order dated 21.12.2004 in Special Civil Application No.15396 of 2004. (iv) Judgment and order dated 20.09.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No.699 of 2011. (v) 2005(9) GHJ 70 Jayantibhai Babalbhai Darji V/s. State of Gujarat. 3.5 Lastly, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay reasonable penalty as this Court deems fit and proper and thereafter, on payment of such penalty, the petitioner undertakes to complete construction within three years from the date of payment of penalty. 4. Mr. Gaurav Mehta, learned advocate for Mr. Pinakin M. Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner has preferred this petition after a lapse of period of 18 years and therefore, it is barred by limitation. It is not under dispute that originally lands in question belonged to Gemaji Motiji and it was converted for non-agricultural purpose under the provisions of the Code. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the order dated 18.03.1982, the holder was expected to complete the construction work within three years from the date of said order. It can be seen from the record that holder has not started or completed construction, till expiry of three years of period. He further submitted that during the inspection of lands in question on 22.11.1987 by the field staff, it was found that only one room having iron roof was constructed and excavation was undertaken in 10 plots in the land of Block Nos. 595 and 605, leaving rest of the lands of Block Nos.597 paiki, 598, 604, 605, and 609 as vacant and thus, it is clear from the record that neither original holder Shri Gemaji Motiji nor petitioner’s association, who had purchased the suit lands, had cared to undertake construction as per approved plan. 5. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has then submitted that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner Association is formed for poor and economical backward class. Moreover, reasons shown for not undertaking construction work within stipulated time are not convincing and no evidence has been produced in support of the same. 5. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has then submitted that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner Association is formed for poor and economical backward class. Moreover, reasons shown for not undertaking construction work within stipulated time are not convincing and no evidence has been produced in support of the same. He has then submitted that the reasons for extension of time limit was also not justified and there was no reason for consideration of application for extension of time limit. He has submitted that extension of time limit can be considered sympathetically provided the holder has made sufficient progress of work after obtaining NA permission. He has lastly submitted that the petitioner has misinterpreted section 65 of the Code. 6. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, in light of the documents forthcoming on the record. It is not under dispute that Gemaji Motiji and other had submitted an application to change the use of the lands in question from agricultural to non-agricultural for the purpose of constructing residential building over the said lands and ultimately by order dated 18.03.1982, permission was granted under Section 65 of the Code. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed breach of condition No.9 of the order dated 18.03.1982 by which NA permission has been granted. Said condition No.9 reads as under:- “9. Within six months from the date of the approval of the plans for Construction, the Construction will be started and within three years all the Construction work will have to be completed”. 6.1 Referring to the above facts, it is clear that the holder was expected to complete the construction work within three years i.e. on or before 18.03.1985. On 10.03.1985, the petitioner has applied for renewal/extension of NA permission granted vide order dated 18.03.1982. It is the case of the petitioner that as there was no information or response to the earlier extension application dated 10.03.1985, on 03.03.1986, the petitioner has again requested for renewal/extension of NA permission granted vie order dated 18.03.1982. Copy of both the renewal applications referred above is at page Nos.38 and 39 of this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that as there was no information or response to the earlier extension application dated 10.03.1985, on 03.03.1986, the petitioner has again requested for renewal/extension of NA permission granted vie order dated 18.03.1982. Copy of both the renewal applications referred above is at page Nos.38 and 39 of this petition. Drawing attention to the above referred renewal permission, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that referring to the renewal application dated 10.03.1985, it is mentioned that petitioner had started construction work at site, but had to suspend the same as the plans of construction were to be changed as per members' requirement. It is important to note that the need for renewal of NA permission was to change plan but the petitioner has miserably failed to produce any document for changing of plan before the concerned official. During the course of submission, at least thrice attention of learned advocate for the petitioner has been drawn to the effect that in which Department and on which date, the said plan has been produced and whether the same has been modified or not and if at all the said plan has been produced, the petitioner can produce the copy of the same in this petition, but petitioner as such remained silent and has not given satisfactory answer to the said queries. In the second renewal application dated 03.03.1986, the petitioner has mentioned that in the month of March 1985, the petitioner has applied for renewal of NA permission, but the date of that earlier application has not been mentioned, for the reasons best known to the petitioner. In this second renewal application, the petitioner has specifically requested to renew NA permission for a further period of three years and also averred that the construction works are awaiting certain steps which are beyond control, and hence the delay. It appears that steps which are beyond control has not been elaborated. It has been submitted by the learned advocates for the respondents that to substantiate their request, petitioner should elaborate the circumstances, which were beyond control and which have been narrated in this petition. It appears that steps which are beyond control has not been elaborated. It has been submitted by the learned advocates for the respondents that to substantiate their request, petitioner should elaborate the circumstances, which were beyond control and which have been narrated in this petition. 6.2 Learned advocates for respondents have drawn attention to paragraph Nos.3.2 and 3.3 and submitted that at length the petitioner has shown the circumstances which had prevented him for completion of construction work within time specified in the order dated 18.03.1982 and in brief the said circumstances are as under:- (a) There were three successive droughts in the State of Gujarat and there was acute shortage of water. (b) Financial condition of the members of the petitioner Association was very weak and were unable to pay their contribution. To meet with the said financial difficulties, the petitioner had approached different financial institutions, but as no fund was available, the petitioner could not arrange finance during that period. (c) Petitioner wanted to make changes in the construction plan as per the members' requirement and therefore on 10.03.1985, a letter was written by the petitioner for extension of time of NA permission. It is pertinent to note that on the above aspect though specify grounds have been raised by the petitioner to show that said circumstances were beyond the control of the petitioner which prevented their Association to complete the construction work within the stipulated period, not a single document has been produced by him before concerned official or before this Court. 6.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that though specific request has been made for renewal/extension of NA permission for further three years, instead of sympathetic consideration, respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why the permission granted for non-agricultural purpose should not be cancelled and why a fine should not be imposed upon the petitioner. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in the said show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, the ground for issuance of notice was that the construction has not started within six months and the same is not completed within three years. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in the said show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, the ground for issuance of notice was that the construction has not started within six months and the same is not completed within three years. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the renewal/extension letters/applications dated 10.03.1985 and 03.03.1986 referred above, were not properly considered because perusal of the provisions of Section 65 of the Code shows that if the Collector fails to inform the petitioner his decision within a period of three months, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. He has further submitted that in the case on hand after above referred two letters/applications, no decision is taken within the period of three months or in any case until the petitioner received the show-cause notice and therefore, permission is deemed to have been granted and once by implication of the statute, the permission is deemed to have been granted then the permission for nonagricultural purpose cannot be cancelled on the ground that within stipulated time, the construction is not completed. 6.4 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has drawn attention of this Court to the letter/application dated 10.03.1985 at page 38 and submitted that the alleged letter dated 10.03.1985 written by the Secretary of the petitioner's Association. It is not under dispute that originally the NA permission was granted to the then occupant holders Gemaji Motiji Thakore and others and the said NA permission thereafter was transferred in the name of petitioner's Association by entry No.7100 dated 21.08.1985 in village revenue record form No.6. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has then submitted that at the fag-end of the stipulated period i.e. on 10.03.1985, the petitioner's Association had alleged to have written the letter/application for renewal of permission, when the NA permission was not transferred in his name, which has ultimately transferred after completion of the stipulated period i.e. 18.03.1985 and so question of reply to the same does not arise at all because the person in whose name the permission stand on 10.03.1985, has not applied or written for renewal of the same. Moreover, after 21.08.1985, when the petitioner has written letter dated 03.03.1986 for renewal/extension of NA permission at page 39, the said NA permission was already lapsed/expired after 18.03.1985 on completion of three years and so question of extension of the said period does not arise. Nothing substantial has been submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner on the above submission made by learned advocate for respondent No.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has reiterated his submission that no reply was given by respondent No.2 in response to the letters dated 10.03.1985 and 03.03.1986 and therefore, the petitioner was under bonafide impression and belief that the permission is deemed to have been granted since the same has not been refused within stipulated time. I do not find any force and merit in the said submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner because as submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2, the petitioner has misinterpreted provisions of Section 65 of the Code. Referring to Section 65 of the Code, as laid down therein, it is clear that, if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any part there of for any other purpose, the Collector's permission shall in the first place be applied for by the occupant and after due inquiry, the Collector either grant or refuse the permission applied for and if the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. Thus, from the bare reading of section 65 of the Code, it is clear that the provision of deemed permission applies at the time of making application for NA permission and the said provision does not apply once permission is accorded. In the case on hand, the question involved is related to renewal/extension of time limit, which had already been fixed vide order dated 18.03.1982. It is also important to note at this juncture that as per the case of the petitioner, after receiving show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, the Secretary of the petitioner's Association appeared in person and filed written reply dated 08.12.1987 stating, interalia, that the request for extension of time was made on 10.03.1985 and 03.03.1986. It is also important to note at this juncture that as per the case of the petitioner, after receiving show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, the Secretary of the petitioner's Association appeared in person and filed written reply dated 08.12.1987 stating, interalia, that the request for extension of time was made on 10.03.1985 and 03.03.1986. Moreover, it was also stated that all the grounds narrated in the paragraph No.6.2 hereinabove were raised, but the copy of the said written reply has not been produced by the petitioner, for the reasons best known to the Association. It is also the case of the petitioner that without giving any opportunity of personal hearing, respondent No.2 had passed order dated 21.03.1988, whereby the permission granted in favour of Gemaji Motiji and others was cancelled. The show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987 is at page Nos.41 to 43. Referring to the same, it appears that time upto 24.11.1987 was granted to submit the say of the petitioner on the said notice and further mentioned that, if the petitioner desired to produce any evidence in support of its defence, petitioner was requested to remain present before respondent No.2 on 29.11.1987 at 11:00 o'clock. 6.5 Referring to the order dated 21.03.1988 at Annexure-’A’, it appears that on 24.11.1987, the petitioner has prayed for time and time upto 08.12.1987 was granted on which date the petitioner had appeared personally and made the submissions, which are narrated by respondent No.2 herein in his said order in para-1 and the same reproduced heretounder:- “1. After the commencement of the (construction) work, it was felt necessary to make change in the (construction) work and, therefore, the district Development Officer, Gandhinagar was requested by letter dated 10.03.1986 to extend the time limit of permission. Thereafter, again on 03.03.1986, a request was made to extend the time limit of the permission. As scarcity conditions were prevailing in Gujarat for the last three years, it was very difficult for the middle class people to make available sufficient funds and complete the construction work within the time limit. Even at present institutions like Gujarat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are unable to meet with the financial requirements. We have not been successful in obtaining the loan. Therefore, time limit of N.A. permission may pleased be extended. Even at present institutions like Gujarat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are unable to meet with the financial requirements. We have not been successful in obtaining the loan. Therefore, time limit of N.A. permission may pleased be extended. The applicants state that except the written reply, they have no more submissions to make.” 6.6 It is pertinent to note that to substantiate the above referred grounds, no single document has been produced by the petitioner, in my view, if he wanted to produce, he could have produced the same like documents related to scarcity condition prevailing in the Gujarat for the period mentioned therein and the efforts, which have been made for raising sufficient fund to complete the construction work within the time limit, but the petitioner was unable to meet with the financial requirements and not succeeded in obtaining loan. The plan of construction to be changed as per members’ requirement put up by the petitioner before the concerned official, but it is the fact that not a single document has been produced before the concerned official and accordingly, the concerned official has passed the order dated 21.03.1988 at Annexure-’A’. 6.7 It is the fact that after issuance of the show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, respondent No.2 has learnt from the field staff, who has carried out the inspection of the lands-in-question on 22.11.1987 that only one room having iron roof was constructed and excavation was undertaken in 10 plots in the land of Block Nos. 595 and 605 leaving the rest of the land of Block Nos.597 paiki, 598, 604, 605 and 609 as vacant. It has been vehemently argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that respondent No.2 herein has not waited for the reply to be filed against the show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987 and without informing the petitioner, respondent No.2 has allowed to carry out the Panchnama and inspection of the lands-in-question, the said action of respondent No.2 is against the principles of natural justice. I do not find any merits and substance in the said submission because the petitioner herein has not filed any objections against the said Panchnama or inspection dated 22.11.1987 taken out by the field staff of respondent No.2 as and when he has learnt about the same nor has the petitioner ever placed reliance on the photographs in rebuttal of the same, which has been inspected by the filed staff vide Panchnama dated 22.11.1987. Thus, though the petitioner is raising the objections against the said inspection/Panchnama dated 22.11.1987 in substance, in my view, indirectly, the petitioner has admitted the said position, which has been forthcoming on the record by way of the said inspection/Panchnama dated 22.11.1987. In light of the above facts, now if we consider the averments made in the petition, it gives some contradictory version which has been pleaded by the petitioner in his petition. It is the case of the petitioner in the present petition that Shri Gemaji Motiji and others, who had obtained the permission for conversion of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural and after such permission granted to them, they had started construction of the building, as per the plans approved and the construction upto plinth level was made by them on 25 plots over the lands-in-question. When the petitioner Association purchased the lands, the said construction had already started and the petitioner Association purchased the said land together with the said constructed portion. It is pertinent to note that what has been averred in the petition is contrary to what the field staff has inspected on 22.11.1987, as referred hereinabove. 6.8 Learned advocate for respondents No.2 has also submitted that much has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is a non-trading corporation, duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Non-trading Corporation Act and the members of the petitioner’s Association are belonging to poor and economical backward class of the society and the said Association is having 48 partners as its members, who were facing financial crisis, as referred hereinabove. But as per the submissions of learned advocate for respondent No.2, there are no remarks except the petitioner's say that the members of the petitioner’s Association belonged to poor and economical backward class. But as per the submissions of learned advocate for respondent No.2, there are no remarks except the petitioner's say that the members of the petitioner’s Association belonged to poor and economical backward class. He has further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner Association is formed for poor and economical backward class and the petitioner has not furnished details of Constitution of Association nor they have furnished list of such poor and economical backward class persons to prove that petitioner Association is really working for poor people. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has then submitted that since the petitioner has purchased big lands-in-question approximately 23 Acres, it prima-facie observed by respondent No.2 that it is purchased for profit motive and as such there was nothing wrong in the said observation arrived at by respondent No.2, and in my view there appears merit and substance in the said submission made by learned advocate for respondent No.2. I have carefully perused both the orders dated 21.03.1988 as well as 10.10.1988 and as discussed hereinabove, in absence of any documentary evidence, in my view, the concerned official has arrived at just and proper conclusion, in the respective orders at Annexure-’A’ and Annexure-’B’ of this petition. The action was initiated for breach of condition of NA order. The reasons for extension of time limit was also not justified, since the reasons for non-completion work were not satisfactory and no substantial progress of work was made. There was no reason for consideration of application for extension of time limit and after affording due opportunity, respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 21.03.1988, as discussed hereinabove. 6.9 On the discussion made hereinabove, prima-facie it appears that the impugned order at Annexure-’A’ is passed in accordance with law and therefore, it is no way arbitrary or against the principles of natural justice. The concerned authority before passing the impugned order has taken into consideration the grounds for not completing such work within stipulated time and has passed the reasoned order, rejecting the said grounds as the same were not convincing. The concerned authority before passing the impugned order has taken into consideration the grounds for not completing such work within stipulated time and has passed the reasoned order, rejecting the said grounds as the same were not convincing. It is the fact that the NA permission which was granted in the year 1982, till 1987 no progress of work was seen except one room and some excavation work in few plots and so, it can be said that the petitioner was allowed maximum five years time for completion of work however, the land holder has not taken care to complete the work. The reasons on which the petitioner has put reliance, as referred hereinabove, for non-completion of construction work, though the petitioner has tried to show that the same were beyond the control of the petitioner, but as discussed hereinabove, in absence of any documentary evidence, it is practically not possible to come to the conclusion that the said reasons shown by the petitioner were beyond the control of the petitioner. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has then submitted that if at all respondent No.2 and in turn respondent No.1 had not found any substance on the reasons shown by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, were beyond the control of the petitioner, then also both the officials were supposed to consider the alternative remedy of imposing fine on the alleged breach of condition no.9, as referred hereinabove. The said aspect has not been touched at all either by respondent No.2 or by respondent No.1 and accordingly, also the impugned orders are bad in law. He has lastly submitted that till today, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay such reasonable penalty as this Court deems fit and proper and further undertakes to complete the construction within the stipulated period from the date of payment of penalty and/or sanctioned of the revised plans. 7.1 In light of the above submissions, certain documents, which are forthcoming on the record, are required to be considered. Copy of the order dated 18.03.1982, granting NA permission is at page Nos.30 to 37. 7.1 In light of the above submissions, certain documents, which are forthcoming on the record, are required to be considered. Copy of the order dated 18.03.1982, granting NA permission is at page Nos.30 to 37. Referring to the conditions imposed therein more particularly, portion below condition No.24, it is mentioned that if breach of any of the conditions imposed therein is committed, the permission will be cancelled or alternatively in addition thereto penal action is provided by the Land Revenue Code, is also to be taken. Moreover, for continuing possession of the land, assessment levied and/or fine imposed will have to be paid. In the show-cause notice dated 17.11.1987, at Annexure-‘F’, it is specifically mentioned that to show cause why for the breach of conditions mentioned therein, the NA permission should not be cancelled and as to why fine should not be imposed under the provisions of the Code. In light of the above documents, if we peruse the impugned orders, it is clear that the alternative remedy to consider the penal action, as provided in the said documents, in breach of the conditions, has not been touched or considered at all. 7.2 Referring to the case of Jayantibhai Babaldas (Supra) and more particularly, paragraph No.5 thereof, it is observed that the petitioner therein had shown willingness to pay the penalty and as the petitioner therein was ready to complete the construction within two years, the Court has thought it fit that no useful purpose will be served in remanding the matter to the District Collector and thereafter, proceeded to quash the order of the Collector, canceling the NA permission imposing penalty of 40 times of revenue assessment and if such penalty is paid, extended the period for two years. 7.3 I have considered the ratio laid down in the case of Jayantibhai Babaldas (Supra), in light of the above referred submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The Court has observed therein that if the grounds for not making the construction were beyond the control of the holder of the land, the NA permission could not have been cancelled and at the most, the matter could be considered for the purpose of imposing penalty. The Court has observed therein that if the grounds for not making the construction were beyond the control of the holder of the land, the NA permission could not have been cancelled and at the most, the matter could be considered for the purpose of imposing penalty. As discussed herein, the petitioner herein has failed to show the grounds for not making the construction were beyond the control of the holder of the land, but inspite of that, I am of the view that when the alternative remedy in form of taking action as provided in the documents as referred above is there in the NA permission which has been granted vide order dated 18.03.1982 as referred hereinabove as well as in the show-cause notice also the said alternative remedy was provided in breach of the conditions, in my view, that aspect was required to be considered while passing the impugned orders by respondent No.2 and in turn respondent No.1 and when they have failed to discharge their duties ignoring the said aspect, in my view impugned orders appear bad to that effect and hence, on that count, the ratio laid down in the case of Jayantibhai Babaldas (Supra), is applicable to the present case also. 7.4 Hence, considering the said facts and circumstances, I find that impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and in turn by respondent No.1, canceling the NA permission deserve to be set aside, but at the same time, the petitioner would be liable to pay the penalty of 40 times of revenue assessment, in case the petitioner is desirous to seek extension for the period of two years for completing the construction. Hence, while deciding the impugned orders, it is further directed that if the petitioner pays the penalty of 40 times of revenue assessment with the concerned District Collector within a period of one and half month from today, the period for completing the construction shall stand extended for a further period of two years from the date of payment of penalty and the petitioner shall abide by the said declaration made before this Court for completing the construction within the said stipulated time limit. 8. Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.