M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) THE State of Gujarat has filed this Special Civil Application against the order dated 19th February 1992 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal and Secretary to Government whereby the appeal of the respondent under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the Act for short) was allowed and the order passed by the Competent Authority had been set aside. ( 2 ) THE respondent Jitsinh Bhikhabhai Rana filed the declaration in Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the Act declaring the total holding of the land to be 16163 sq. mtrs. with the break-up as under: (I) Survey No. 319 13051 sq. mtrs. (II) Survey No. 602/1 2836 sq. mtrs. (III) Gamtal land 75 73 sq. mtrs. (IV) Gamtal land 74 203 sq. mtrs. The Competent Authority at Baroda under the Act passed the order on 31. 3. 1983 declaring 14663 sq. mtrs. of land as an excess land after allowing one unit of 1500 sq. mtrs. in favour of the respondent. The Notification under Section 10 dated 25th August 1983 was published in the Government Gazette dated 22nd September 1983; the Notification under Section 10 (3) dated 3. 3. 1984 was published in the Government Gazette dated 22nd March 1984 and the Notification under Section 10 was issued on 18th June 1984. According to the respondent he received the copy of the order of the Competent Authority dated 31st March 1983 on 2nd August 1984 and an appeal was filed by the respondent before the Tribunal on 4th August 1984 along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal entertained the appeal on 17th August 1984 and granted the stay on 6th November 1984 which was communicated on 9th November 1984 to the respondent. The Tribunal finally allowed the appeal on 19th February 1992 setting aside the Competent Authoritys order dated 31st March 1983 and granting 9000 sq. mtrs. of land against six units as retainable holding with the respondent as he had two sons as well as his sister along with two sons were also entitled to one unit each. Thus the six units were granted and accordingly 7163 sq. mtrs. of land only was allowed to be in excess instead of 16663 sq. mtrs. as was held by the Competent Authority. Thus the six units were granted and accordingly 7163 sq. mtrs. of land only was allowed to be in excess instead of 16663 sq. mtrs. as was held by the Competent Authority. The State of Gujarat therefore preferred this Special Civil Application against the Tribunals order dated 19th February 1992 on 18th June 1994 i. e. after a delay of about 28 months. The affidavits-in-reply dated 21. 11. 1994 and 18. 1. 1995 respectively have been filed along with certain documents by the respondent. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent Mr. M. I. Hawa learned Counsel has submitted that this Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay and laches and also on the ground that the petitioner has concealed and suppressed material facts and has rather made false averments in the body of the petition. Mr. Hawa learned Counsel has pointed out that as per the petitioners own say in the body of the petition in paragraph 6 the Tribunals order dated 19th February 1992 was received by the office of the Competent Authority somewhere in December 1992 and thereafter the Department made a proposal to the Legal Department for filing the Special Civil Application vide letter dated 22nd December 1992 and the Legal Department accorded sanction for filing the Special Civil Application on 25th January 1993 and directed the office of the Government Pleader to file the same on 10th February 1993 the Department collected the papers including the Notifications and other orders from various Departments and forwarded the same to the office of the Government Pleader on 11 May 1993. Mr. Mr. Hawa learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that although there is no justification for the delay from February 1992 to May 1993 there is no explanation whatsoever for the period i. e. after 11th May 1993 until 18th June 1994 and it also appears that the Special Civil Application had been typed in the year 1993 and the date on page 8 of the Special Civil Application has been corrected so as to make the year 1994 from 1993 and although the date has been corrected as 20th May 1994 on page 8 of the Special Civil Application and the affidavit which has been filed in support thereof bears the date corrected as 20th May 1994 the Special Civil Application was filed in the Court on 18th June 1994 Mr. Hawa learned Counsel has placed reliance on an order of the Single Judge passed by this Court in Special Civil Application 3200 of 1994 decided on 21st October 1994 and yet another order passed in Special Civil Application No. 4727 of 1984 decided on 28th February 1994. He has also placed reliance on AIR 1987 SC 251 ; State of MP and Ors. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. para 23 thereof and 1994 XXXV (2) GLR 1564 Dilavarsinh Khodubha jadeja vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. He has also submitted that in paragraph 2 of the Special Civil Application a deliberate false statement has been made to the effect that the appeal was not accompanied by the application for condonation of delay whereas the fact is that the delay has been condoned by the Tribunal after notice of application for condonation of delay to the Competent Authority through whom the present Special Civil Application has been filed and therefore this statement was false to the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore the Special Civil Application deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. ( 4 ) MR. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. Pleader has submitted that no order condoning the delay had been passed by the Tribunal and in view of the controversy on this aspect of the matter an order was passed on 30th January 1995 by this Court to call for the Record of the Appeal decided by the Tribunal on 19th February 1992. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. Pleader has submitted that no order condoning the delay had been passed by the Tribunal and in view of the controversy on this aspect of the matter an order was passed on 30th January 1995 by this Court to call for the Record of the Appeal decided by the Tribunal on 19th February 1992. The record was received and the order sheets in the record of the appeal shows that there was an application for condonation of delay and the delay was condoned by the Tribunal on 5th November 1984 after notice to the other side and only thereafter the stay order was passed by the Tribunal on 6th November 1984. Mr. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. Pleader could not explain as to how this wrong statement came to be made in the body of the Special Civil Application on the question of the absence of the application for condonation of delay but submitted that it is a case of administrative delay and the delay has been explained in paragraph 6 of the body of the Special Civil Application to which the reference has already been made hereinabove. Mr. Mehta has placed reliance on JT 1995 (1) SC 138 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. M. T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) and has submitted that the delay stands explained and this Special Civil Application cannot be thrown on the ground of delay. The argument of Mr. Hawa learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is not a case of simple inordinate and unexplained delay but is a case of serious laches on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent has altered his position to his prejudice and he has submitted that the final statement in pursuance of the Tribunals order had been issued by the Competent Authority on 6th July 1992 declaring 7163 sq. mtrs. mtrs. of land only to be in excess the respondent had then applied on 22nd September 1992 for permission to raise constructions and the plans had been approved by the Baroda Municipal Corporation on 16th December 1992 the permission for non-agricultural use was applied on 22nd January 1993 and that too was granted on 31st July 1993 with regard to the land in Survey No. 319 and the permission for non-agricultural use with regard to Survey No. 602/1 was also granted on 1st December 1993 and the respondent had entered into an agreement to sell to the third party on 20th September 1993. The case of the respondent therefore is that between 9th February 1992 and 18 June 1994 several steps had been taken by the respondent as stated above and these steps had been taken before filing of the present Special Civil Application in June 1994. He has produced the certificates issued by the Architects showing that in Survey No. 319 the respondent had invested a sum of about Rs. 22 70 0 against the construction and development and in Survey No. 602 he had invested a sum of Rs. 9 75 0 It has also been given out by Mr. Hawa that the constructed area in Survey No. 319 of 3811 sq. mtrs. and that in Survey No. 602/1 is 2836 sq. mtrs. on which the residential units have been constructed which are nearing completion. It has therefore been submitted that the respondent has been made to act to his prejudice in the intervening period i. e. after the Tribunals order which is in his favour and before filing of the Special Civil Application and thus this case is not to be treated as of simple delay but a case of laches and the petition should not be entertained. On the other hand it was submitted by Mr. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. On the other hand it was submitted by Mr. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. Pleader that the Competent Authority had passed the order on 31 March 1983 and in pursuance of this order passed by the Competent Authority the Notification under Section 10 (1) was issued on 25 August 1983 Notification under Section 10 (3) was issued on 3rd March 1984 and the Notification under Section 10 (5) was issued on 18th June 1984 and therefore the land became vested in the Government and unless and until the Notification issued under Section 10 (5) vesting the excess land in the Government is not challenged by the respondent the respondent cannot take the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal in the year 1992 and he has also submitted that even the stay order had been passed by the Tribunal as late as on 6th November 1984 because the appeal filed by the respondent himself was time-barred and even if it is found that the application for condonation of delay had been filed and the delay has been condoned it was so condoned on 5th November 1984 and the stay order was passed on 6th November 1984 after the issuance of the Notification under Section 10 (5) on 18th June 1984 and therefore the respondent should thank himself and he cannot take any benefit of the Tribunals order dated 19th February 1992. Mr. Hawa learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the Tribunal had passed the order setting aside the order passed by the Competent Authority even if the Notification under Section 10 of the Act had been issued upto the stage under Section 10 (5) appropriate steps had to be taken by the respondent as a consequence of the Tribunals order and merely because the Notification had been issued before the Tribunal could finally decide the appeal such Notifications cannot become fact-accompli and the process of reversal of all the steps which had taken place during the period after the order of the Competent Authority and before the order of the Tribunal ought to have been followed. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides at length and have also considered the peculiar facts of this case and the grounds with regard the laches and the mis-statement of facts in the petition and the ground that the School Leaving Certificates had been produced before the Competent Authority also to show that the two sons were major on 17th February 1976 and their age had been wrongly mentioned in the declaration and further that the sister of the respondent had also a claim and so also her two sons although there is a controversy that his sister Madinaben had relinquished her rights from the property in the year 1980 and the controversy as to whether her rights of inheritance shall be governed by Hindu Law or Mahommadan Law. I have also considered the fact-situation that the respondent has invested lakhs of rupees for the development and construction of the land in Survey No. 319 to the extent of 3811 sq. mtrs. and in Survey No. 602/1 to the extent of 2836 sq. mtrs. i. e. 6647 sq. mtrs. in all. The matter was therefore argued on merits by both the sides but Mr. Hawa learned Counsel for the respondent while summing up his arguments made a very candid statement that the respondent will be satisfied and he would not press the aforesaid preliminary objections provided the respondent is allowed to retain the land which has already been developed and on which the construction has been raised and that the rest of the land which is lying vacant even at present and which has been notified as reserved for Baroda Municipal Corporations Local Centre may be acquired by the State. Mr. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. Pleader had though argued the case on merits realising the gravity of the facts on which the preliminary objections were based found it worthwhile not to contest the suggestions made by Mr. Hawa learned Counsel for the respondent. Mr. Mehta learned Assistant Govt. Pleader had though argued the case on merits realising the gravity of the facts on which the preliminary objections were based found it worthwhile not to contest the suggestions made by Mr. Hawa learned Counsel for the respondent. I have also considered all the aspects of the matter and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that it will meet the ends of substantial justice to both the parties if the respondent is allowed to retain the land which has already been developed and on which certain constructions have been raised and because the School Leaving Certificates of the two sons of the respondent indicate that they were major at the relevant time when the Act came into force inasmuch as their dates of birth as per the certificates are 10. 12 and 26. 12. 1957 and even if Madinaben is treated to be governed under the Mahommadan Law as argued by Mr. Mehta she gets 1/8th of the share which comes out to be approximately 2000 sq. mtrs. and when she had relinquished her rights in favour of the respondent in the year 1980 four units of land may be treated to be retainable by the respondent which comes out to be 6000 sq. mtrs. and the land which the respondent seeks to now retain in 6647 sq. mtrs. and thus it would make a difference of 647 sq. mtrs. only. The case of the respondent is that he has invested about Rs. 32 45 0 in the development and constructions over the land is uncontroverted the order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of 7163 sq. mtrs. of land the petitioner-State of Gujarat shall take over 9516 sq. mtrs. of land but allow the respondent to retain 6647 sq. mtrs. of land as has been referred to hereinabove i. e. 3811 sq. mtrs. in Survey No. 319 and 2836 sq. mtrs. of land in Survey No. 602 The land admeasuring 9516 sq. mtrs. which the State of Gujarat will take over shall include the land reserved for the Baroda Municipal Corporations Local Centre i. e. 9136 sq. mtrs. and the rest of 380 sq. mtrs. mtrs. in Survey No. 319 and 2836 sq. mtrs. of land in Survey No. 602 The land admeasuring 9516 sq. mtrs. which the State of Gujarat will take over shall include the land reserved for the Baroda Municipal Corporations Local Centre i. e. 9136 sq. mtrs. and the rest of 380 sq. mtrs. of land shall be taken over from Survey No. 319 so as to make the total figure of the land to be acquired by the State of Gujarat to be 9516 sq. mtrs. instead of 7163 sq. mtrs. as was ordered by the Tribunal and the respondent shall retain only 6647 sq. mtrs. of land instead of 9000 sq. mtrs. as ordered by the Tribunal. The State of Gujarat shall issue revised Notifications under Section 10 of the Act in terms of this order and hence-forth this order would govern the rights of the parties. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with the order it may be observed that in such matters whether the petitions are filed by the State of Gujarat or the petitions are filed against the State the concerned department is the Urban Land Ceiling Department and therefore the department has to watch the interest of the State and for that purpose the department should collect all necessary material and records from the concerned Competent Authority or the Urban Land Tribunal or any other wings of its own department and other Government departments or concerned autonomous bodies so as to complete the pleadings. All the functionaries bodies authorities and departments are duly bound to extend full the ready co-operation to the Urban Land Ceiling Department and any lapse in this regard should be viewed seriously entailing appropriate action against the defaulting officer. If need be the Urban Land Ceiling Department may obtain certified copies of relevant documents from the office of the Competent Authority of the Urban Land Tribunal or other autonomous bodies or Departments but pleadings have to be completed whether the State is a petitioner or a respondent. This Special Civil Application is therefore partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed. .