K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Jiva Nura. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of deceased Jiva Nura. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the actions of the Additional collector, Rajkot directing the Mamlatdar, Rajkot by his letter dated 31-7-1999 and the action of the Mamlatdar, Rajkot directing the Talati-cum-Mantri, City chavdi, Rajkot by his letter dated 16-8-1999 and the action of the Talati-cum-Mantri to make the mutation entry in the record of rights on 1-4-2000, on the basis of the order passed by the Additional Collector on 23-2-1987 under the Provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, despite the fact that the said order dated 23-2-1987 was taken in review under Sec. 34 of the said act before the Secretary, Revenue Department, (U. L. C.) Gandhinagar. According to the petitioner, all these actions of the respondent-authorities are absolutely illegal, unlawful, contrary to the statutory provisions and in violation of Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealed Act, 1999. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that deceased Jiva Nura became the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 130/15, admeasuring 3 Acres - 19 Gunthas and Survey No. 110 admeasuring 2 Acres - 34 Gunthas of Moje Rajkot and since then the said Jiva Nura and after his death, their heirs were cultivating the said land for agricultural purposes and they are holding the possession of the said land. ( 3 ) IT is stated that in 1976, when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act has come into force, deceased Jiva Nura had filed Form No. 1 for the above agricultural land and details of this agricultural land were given in the said Form. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased Jiva Nura had separately applied for granting exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act for his land as the lands were agricultural land from the beginning and they used the said land for agricultural purposes even on the specified day under the U. L. C. Act. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased Jiva Nura had separately applied for granting exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act for his land as the lands were agricultural land from the beginning and they used the said land for agricultural purposes even on the specified day under the U. L. C. Act. It is further stated that pursuant to the application filed by the Jiva Nura for exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act, the Additional Collector has asked to supply Court Fee Stamp of Rs. 10/- which was to be affixed on the said application. The said letter was addressed on 26-4-1978. It is further stated that in U. L. C. Case No. 62 of 1976, a statement of deceased Jiva Nura was recorded in which the demand for exemption as an agricultural land was made. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent on 6-5-1982 by the said Jiva Nura for granting exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act. ( 4 ) IT is further stated that despite the above facts, the Additional Collector passed an order on 23-2-1987 stating that the exemption under Sec. 20 of the u. L. C. Act was not granted and the draft statement was confirmed as final statement. It is further stated that since the Secretary, Revenue Department has not found the said order in accordance with law and considered the said order to be illegal, he has taken the said order in Revision under Sec. 34 of the u. L. C. Act and passed an injunction order directing to maintain status-quo with regard to the position of land in question till further order. It is also stated that the said Revision is pending till the U. L. C. Act was repealed. ( 5 ) THE petitioners have further stated that U. L. C. Act was repealed by virtue of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealed Act, 1999 having come into force on 22-3-1999. The State of Gujarat has decided to adopt the Provisions of the said repealed Act with effect from 30-3-1999. Pursuant to this Repealed act, the Secretary, Revenue Department has passed an order on 19-4-1999 stating that in view of the said Repealed Act, the review proceedings initiated by him under Sec. 34 of the U. L. C. Act have been closed. Pursuant to this Repealed act, the Secretary, Revenue Department has passed an order on 19-4-1999 stating that in view of the said Repealed Act, the review proceedings initiated by him under Sec. 34 of the U. L. C. Act have been closed. Despite these facts, the additional Collector instructed the Mamlatdar and the Mamlatdar instructed the talati-cum-Mantri to make the mutation entry in the Record of Rights deleting the land from the account of the petitioners and transferring the same in the name of Government. ( 6 ) IT is this action of the respondent-authorities which is under challenge in the present petition. ( 7 ) MR. K. H. Baxi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were holding the land in question since their forefathers and they were cultivating the said land for the agricultural purposes till this date. He has further submitted that in support of their submissions, the copies of record of rights, village form No. 7/12 right from 1971 till 2000-2001 were produced and it was established on the basis of this records that the petitioners were cultivating the said land, and there was no other use of the said land. Mr. Baxi has further submitted that since the land was used for agricultural purpose on the date of enactment of U. L. C. Act, the petitioners and their predecessors in title were entitled to exemption under Sec. 20 of the u. L. C. Act. An application to that effect was separately filed by the deceased shri Jiva Nura. It is the case of the petitioners that the said application of the deceased Jiva Nura to grant exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act remained pending and undecided till this date and no order either granting or rejecting exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act is passed on the said application. ( 8 ) MR. Baxi has further submitted that without disposing of the application for exemption under Sec. 20 of the Act, the Additional Collector has passed an illegal order on 23-2-1987 declaring the land of the petitioners as excess land and confirming the draft statement as final statement. ( 8 ) MR. Baxi has further submitted that without disposing of the application for exemption under Sec. 20 of the Act, the Additional Collector has passed an illegal order on 23-2-1987 declaring the land of the petitioners as excess land and confirming the draft statement as final statement. He has further submitted that the said order dated 23-2-1987 was taken in review under Sec. 34 of the Act by the Secretary, Revenue Department on the ground that the order passed by the Additional Collector was contrary to the facts on record and against the provisions of law, and therefore, he issued stay order against the said order on 30-9-1991. The said suo motu proceedings staying the order dated 23-2-1987 in review remained pending and undecided till the Repealed act came into force and the stay order granted by the Secretary, Revenue department continued till then. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Baxi has submitted that two proceedings were pending on the date of the Repealed Act and as per the provision of the Repealed Act, all the proceedings relating to any order made under the U. L. C. Act and pending were abated, and therefore, nothing has to be done, nor any modification was to be carried out or any order passed was to be under the U. L. C. Act, after the Repealed Act was made applicable to the State of Gujarat with effect from 30-3-1999. ( 9 ) THE main thrust of the argument of Mr. Baxi is that despite the pendency of application under Sec. 20 of the Act seeking exemption for agricultural land, the Additional Collector has finalised the draft statement which is contrary to the settled legal position. In this connection, he relies on the decision of this court in the case of Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1984 (1) glr 322 wherein it is held that "after filing of any statement under Sec. 6 of the Act, if a citizen applies for exemption under Sec. 20 of the Act, it is the duty of the Government to deal with that application first and then proceed to resort to Secs. 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act. " In this connection, this Court has held as under :-"the Governments satisfaction about granting or not granting the exemption under Sec. 20 (1) (1) rests on objective facts. 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act. " In this connection, this Court has held as under :-"the Governments satisfaction about granting or not granting the exemption under Sec. 20 (1) (1) rests on objective facts. The factors which are required to be taken into account by the Government are the location of the land, the purpose for which such land was used at the time the application came to be made, the purpose for which such land is proposed to be used in future and such other relevant factors as make the Government decide that it is necessary or expedient and that too in the public interest to grant the exemption. The question whether exemption is necessary in the public interest is a complex question, which is required to be decided in a complex spectrum of facts. It is, therefore, in the fitness of the things that the Government should ordinarily hear the application if the Government is prima facie and ex-parte inclined to take a view that the exemption is not to be granted. It is because of the far-reaching effect of the Governments decision on the applicants prospects that the personal hearing is required to be read as the implicit requirement of the provisions of Sec. 20 (1) (1) the exemption is not to be granted. It is because of the far-reaching effect of the Governments decision on the applicants prospects that the personal hearing is required to be read as the implicit requirement of the provisions of Sec. 20 (1) (1) the exemption is not to be granted. It is because of the far-reaching effect of the Governments decision on the applicants prospects that the personal hearing is required to be read as the implicit requirement of the provisions of Sec. 20 (l) (a) and 20 (l) (b) of the Act. While deciding applications for exemptions under Sec. 20 (l) (a) of the Act only facts that the Government can take into account are that the land is proposed to be used for a purpose which would advance the public interest. All applications are required to be decided by the standards and grounds enumerated in Sec. 20 (l) (a) of the Act and none other. All applications are required to be decided by the standards and grounds enumerated in Sec. 20 (l) (a) of the Act and none other. Nothing can be allowed to be brought to bear, that in any way would narrow down the scope of the Governments power and consequential possible benefit that may accrue to a citizen. Any attempt by the State Government by issuance of guidelines to whittle down the ambit of its power and lessening the possibility of the corresponding benefit to a citizen are to be discountenanced and not to be taken as in any way binding to the Government. " ( 10 ) MR. Baxi has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Avanti Organisation v. Competent Authority and Additional Collector, rajkot, 1989 (1) GLR 368 (FB) wherein while slightly modifying the decision of this Court in Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1984 (1) GLR 322 , this Court has held as under :-"it is indeed true, that it should be the endeavour of the State Government to dispose of the application under Sec. 20 (1) at an early date but the Court is not inclined to the view that merely because an application for exemption is pending, the entire process beyond the Sec. 6 stage should grind to a halt till such application is decided. Ordinarily, the process can be carried upto the sec. 8 (3) stage and at that stage the competent authority must apply its mind whether having regard to the nature of the objections it would be desirable to pass an order adverse to the objector under Sec. 8 (4) notwithstanding the pendency of the exemption application. If the objection has no relevance to the lands in respect of which exemption is sought, there is no reason why the competent authority should not proceed further upto Sec. 10 (2) stage. For the above reason, this Court cannot subscribe to the view expressed in Paragraph 2 of Nirmalabens case, 1984 (1) GLR 322 . " ( 11 ) MR. Baxi has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Samrathben Manilal Chokshi and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. For the above reason, this Court cannot subscribe to the view expressed in Paragraph 2 of Nirmalabens case, 1984 (1) GLR 322 . " ( 11 ) MR. Baxi has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Samrathben Manilal Chokshi and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , 1994 (1) glr 203 wherein while applying the ratio of Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1984 (1) GLR 322 to the application under Sec. 21 of the u. L. C. Act, this Court has held as under :-"it is true that the Bench in Nirmalaben Manilal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1984 (1) GLR 322 was concerned with the case where an application under sec. 20 of the Act for exemption was taken and was pending at the time when the further processes under the Act were prosecuted. But we find that there is no warrant to make a distinction between a case where an application under sec. 20 is pending and a case where an application under Sec. 21 is pending. Sec. 20 deals with the general power to exempt. Section 21 deals with the power to treat and declare as not excess land even though the person holds the land in excess of the Ceiling limit, in the contigencies set forth therein. If the power to exempt is exercised under Sec. 20 of the Act, the land does not come within the purview of Chapter III of the Act. The implication of an order, if that comes to be made under Sec. 21 of the Act is that though there is vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, yet it would not be treated as excess, for the purpose of Chapter III of the Act. That Chapter is the blood- stream of the Act and it contains the operative provisions for ceiling on vacant land. The result of the order under either Sec. 20 or 21 is that the land goes out of the mischief of Chapter III of the Act. The result is one and the same though the process and the scope of the consideration may be different. " ( 12 ) LASTLY, Mr. Baxi has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. The result is one and the same though the process and the scope of the consideration may be different. " ( 12 ) LASTLY, Mr. Baxi has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Savitaben Ramanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1999 (1) GLR 860 : 1999 (1) GLH 100 wherein, after referring to the aforesaid decisions, this court has held as under :-"the State is bound to follow the decision of this Court. Under the circumstances, the proceedings initiated in the present two cases in respect of the lands upto the stages of Sec. 10 (2) of the Act are for the present left untouched. The prosecution of further processes under the Act after the stage of Sec. 10 (2) of the Act will depend upon the decision on the applications under Sec. 20 and/or 21 of the Act. " ( 13 ) OVER and above the above issue, Mr. Baxi has further submitted that the provisions of the Repealed Act are very clear and on the date of the Repealed act, the matter pertaining to agricultural land of the petitioner was not finally determined under the provisions of the U. L. C. Act as the matter was pending before the Secretary, Revenue Department under the provisions of Sec. 34 of the Act. Not only this, the Secretary, Revenue Department while taking the order passed by the Additional Collector, in review under Sec. 34 of the U. L. C. Act, has also granted a stay order against the implementation of the Additional collectors order. The natural effect of the said stay order was that the possession of the petitioners was not disturbed till it was decided to close the said proceedings. He has, therefore, submitted that there was no justification to make the entry in the record of rights deleting the entry in the name of the petitioners and mutating fresh entry in the name of the State Government with regard to the lands in question. ( 14 ) MS. He has, therefore, submitted that there was no justification to make the entry in the record of rights deleting the entry in the name of the petitioners and mutating fresh entry in the name of the State Government with regard to the lands in question. ( 14 ) MS. D. S. Pandit, learned A. G. P. appearing for the respondents relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed on 11-4-2002 by the competent authority (U. L. C. and Additional Collector (Co-ordi.), Rajkot) wherein it was stated that the husband and/or father of the present petitioners, namely, deceased Jiva Nura had filed declaration in Form No. 1 under Sec. 6 (1) of the U. L. C. Act before the competent authority on 11-8-1976 and declared the total area of land 21,986- sq. mtrs. The Additional Collector had issued the draft amendment under Sec. 8 (3) of the Act on 11-11-1982, and thereafter, he had ordered under sec. 8 (4) on 23-2-1987. In the said order, the competent authority had given the findings that the objections were not accepted and the agricultural exemption has not been given under Sec. 20 as well as the evidence of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act has not been produced and also the Revenue department had rejected the demand of sale and agricultural land on 25-7-1983 and in this view of the matter, the competent authority had accepted the draft statement issued on 11-11-1982 as final statement under Sec. 9 of the Act. ( 15 ) IT is further stated in the said affidavit that the competent authority had issued the Notification under Sec. 10 (1) on 13-4-1987 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 30-4-1987. Thereafter, Notification under sec. 10 (3) was issued on 13-8-1987 and the same has been published in the official Gazette on 10-9-1987. It is further stated that thereafter, the competent authority had issued the notice under Sec. 10 (5) of the U. L. C. Act to the original land-holder on 23-9-1987 through R. P. AD. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have intentionally delayed the matter and sought adjournments from time to time. It is further stated that thereafter, the competent authority had issued the notice under Sec. 10 (5) of the U. L. C. Act to the original land-holder on 23-9-1987 through R. P. AD. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have intentionally delayed the matter and sought adjournments from time to time. The State Government, after following due procedure under the law, has taken over the possession of the excess lands in question under Sec. 10 (6) on 25-4-1990 in presence of Panchas and necessary intimation to that effect was given to the original holder on 18-5-1990. Ultimately, the competent authority had declared an award under Sec. 11 on 30-5-1990. All these documents are produced on record along with the affidavit-in-reply. ( 16 ) IT is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Rajkot under the provisions contained in Rule 105 (5) of the Land Revenue Rules and the said appeal is still pending. It is further stated that no application was moved by the petitioners under Sec. 20 (1) of the U. L. C. Act seeking exemption for agricultural land. Even the application for sale of the land was also rejected way back on 25-7-1983. On the basis of these facts, it was urged that on the date of coming into force of Repealed Act, the position of the land was that the possession of the excess land in question had been taken over by the State Government. ( 17 ) MS. Pandit has also invited the Courts attention to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent wherein issue was raised to the effect that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and the petitioners have not disclosed anything with regard to the issuance of show-cause notice which was served on the petitioners along with the stay order dated 30-9-1991. It is further stated that bare reading of the said order dated 30-9-1991 clearly shows that the show-cause notice along with the order was served upon the petitioners. It is amply clear from the said show-cause notice that the powers under Sec. 34 were exercised by the Secretary, Revenue Department after taking into consideration the order dated 23-2-1987 whereby 20,486/- sq. mtrs. of land was declared surplus. It is amply clear from the said show-cause notice that the powers under Sec. 34 were exercised by the Secretary, Revenue Department after taking into consideration the order dated 23-2-1987 whereby 20,486/- sq. mtrs. of land was declared surplus. However, after perusing the record, it was noticed by the Secretary, revenue Department that the Additional Collector has passed an order without application of mind to the extent that instead of taking into consideration 14,063/- sq. mtrs. of land out of Survey No. 130, the competent authority has taken into account 10,218/- sq. mtrs. of land for declaring the same as surplus land. This vital aspect of the matter was suppressed by the petitioners in the present petition. ( 18 ) ON the basis of the affidavit-in-reply as well as the additional affidavit and also on the basis of the affidavit-in-surrejoinder, Ms. D. S. Pandit, learned a. G. P. has strongly defended the order passed by the Additional Collector and the directions given by the authorities to make necessary entries in the record of rights. Since the application for exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act was not at all made by the petitioners, nor they were in a position to produce the said application before the Court, and since the possession was already taken by the State Government way back in 1990, the grievance raised by the petitioners could not be redressed, and hence, she has submitted that the petition is required to be dismissed. ( 19 ) WHAT emerges from the rival submissions of the parties is that, according to the petitioner, on the date when the Repealed Act has come into force, two proceedings were pending and they are (i) an application seeking exemption under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act preferred by the Jiva Nura was pending before the competent authority and (ii) the review proceedings against the order passed by the Additional Collector on 23-2-1987 were pending and the stay granted in the said review proceedings against the implementation of the order dated 23-2-1987 was in force. As a result thereof, the possession was still with the petitioners which cannot be taken from the petitioners, after the said Repealed act has come into force. In support of his submissions, main reliance was placed by Mr. As a result thereof, the possession was still with the petitioners which cannot be taken from the petitioners, after the said Repealed act has come into force. In support of his submissions, main reliance was placed by Mr. Baxi on the letter dated 26-4-1978 whereby Jiva Nura was asked to affix the stamp of Rs. 10/- on the application for agriculture exemption under sec, 20 of the U. L. C. Act. A reliance was also placed on the Record of Rights, namely, Village Form Nos. 7 and 12 wherein right from 1970 - 1971 to 1999 - 2000, the land in question was shown in the name of deceased Jiva Nura and for the first time, the entry was made in favour of the Govt. from 2000 - 2001 onwards on the basis of the order passed by the Additional Collector on 23-2-1987 in respect of 11534 sq. mtrs. which were declared surplus. In respect of proceedings under Sec. 34 are concerned, a reliance was placed on the order passed by the Additional Collector on 19-4-1999 wherein it was mentioned that since the Repealed Act has come into force with effect from 30-3-1999 in the State of Gujarat, proceedings initiated under Sec. 34 of the u. L. C. Act have been dropped. After examining both these contentions raised by the petitioner, it appears to the Court that there is no much substance therein as the petitioner has not produced the copy of the application, said to have been preferred under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act. Unless and until such application is made, it cannot be said that the same is pending before the competent authority. Despite the Court has frequently asked Mr. Baxi to produce the copy of the application before the Court even at this stage, he is not in a position to produce the said application nor he was in a position to produce either the acknowledgment receipt or even the date of filing of the said application. Simply on the basis of corroborative evidences, he has based his argument that such application was preferred and the same was pending before the competent authority. The reference to affixing Rs. Simply on the basis of corroborative evidences, he has based his argument that such application was preferred and the same was pending before the competent authority. The reference to affixing Rs. 10/- stamp on the alleged application would not take the petitioners case any further as what was intended by the said reference was to ask the petitioner to make the application in proper format with requisite stamp. This, however, does not mean that such application was already filed by the petitioner and it was pending before the competent authority. As a matter of fact, the Additional Collector, vide his order dated 23-2-1987 made it clear that Jiva Nura has not been given the agricultural exemption to the land held by him. It was also made very clear in the said order that permission sought for sale of the agricultural land was also rejected vide order dated 25-7-1983. This makes it abundantly clear that no such application was ever made by the petitioners under Sec. 20 of the U. L. C. Act for seeking agricultural exemption. If the application is not made, there is no question of it being pending before the competent authority and if it is not pending before the competent authority, the authorities relied upon by Mr. Baxi would not render any assistance to the petitioner. ( 20 ) AS far as proceedings under Sec. 34 of the U. L. C. Act are concerned, it is rightly pointed out by Ms. D. S. Pandit from the additional affidavit that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding issuance of show-cause notice which was served on the petitioner along with the order dated 30-9-1991 on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed that the stay has been granted against the implementation of the order dated 23-2-1987 passed by the Additional collector. The petitioner has not produced the said notice before the Court. On the contrary, the said notice was produced by the respondent along with the further affidavit-in-reply. A plain reading of the said show-cause notice makes it abundantly clear that powers under Sec. 34 of the U. L. C. Act were exercised by the revenue authority after taking into consideration the order dated 23-2-1987 whereby 20,486/- sq. mtrs. of land was declared to be surplus. A plain reading of the said show-cause notice makes it abundantly clear that powers under Sec. 34 of the U. L. C. Act were exercised by the revenue authority after taking into consideration the order dated 23-2-1987 whereby 20,486/- sq. mtrs. of land was declared to be surplus. However, after perusing the said record, it was noticed by the revenue authority that the Additional Secretary has not applied his mind to the extent that instead of taking into consideration 14,063/- sq. mtrs. of land out of Survey No. 130, he has taken into consideration 10,218/- sq. mtrs. of land and to rectify the said mistake, the show-cause notice was issued and the stay order was granted. It was only with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to the limited extent that instead of 10,218/- sq. mtrs. of land, 14,063/- sq. mtrs. of land were required to be taken into consideration for declaring the same as surplus land. If show-cause notice was issued for rectifying this mistake and the injunction order was granted for this limited purpose, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Additional Collector on 23-2-1987 was stayed in its entirety. The land which was declared to be surplus was already vested in the government and no dispute was raised by the petitioner. The State Government, after following due procedure under the law, has taken over the possession of the excess land in question under Sec. 10 (6) of the U. L. C. Act on 25-4-1990 in presence of panchas and necessary intimation to that effect was also given to the original holder on 18-5-1990. The competent authority had also declared the award under sec. 11 of the U. L. C. Act on 30-5-1990. In this view of the matter, even pendency of proceedings under Sec. 34 is not believable as what is dropped is not the proceeding which is already concluded. The Repealed Act would have its effect only on the land which was not declared surplus by virtue a mistake committed in the order dated 23-2-1987 passed by the Additional Collector. .