was made and the petitioner was required to show cause as to why, the land should not be forfeited in the State Government for the breach of condition. The petitioner had tendered his reply dated 24.09.2020. In the first para of the reply, it is stated that the compound wall has been constructed and old shed is there. Further reason assigned is that there is a recession in the business of diamond. It further states that the shed is in a dilapidated condition, request is made for further extension of time so as to carry out the construction. It is urged that since there is a recession in the diamond business, extension may be granted for a period of two years so that, the petitioner can put up the construction. Therefore, when the notice was issued to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause as to why, the land should not be forfeited, there is not a whisper in the reply of the petitioner that there is no breach, on the contrary, the petitioner requested for extension of time. The reply, in the opinion of this Court, is as vague as it can be inasmuch as, nothing has been mentioned except stating that the petitioner has constructed the compound wall and a shed and owing to the recession, he could not commence the business.
