( 1 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner-Maninagar vaishalipark Co-operative Housing Society limited has challenged an order dated 28-10-1987 passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (here- in-after referred to as "the said Act" ). The petitioner has also challenged order passed by Urban land Tribunal by which the order of the Competent authority passed on 28-10-1987 came to be confirmed. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to the present petition in the nutshell can be noted at this stage : (1) Shri R. R. Tiwari and Dr. P. B. Mehta, respondent no. 4 and 5 herein jointly owned a land bearing survey no. 216/2/1 paikee admeasuring 12160 sq. yards of village Ghodasar, District Sub-district, ahmedabad, Taluka City. By two separate sale deeds both dated 04-02-1976, said Shri R. R. Tiwari and shri P. B. Mehta sold their shares of the said land to the petitioner-society. (2) On 17-02-1976, the said Act was brought into force and was made applicable to the State of gujarat at the first instance. With respect to the land in question therefore, the provision of the said Act applied with effect from 17-02-1976. (3) The term "appointed day" has been defined under section 2 (a) of the said Act. In relation to any state to which the Act applies in the first instance, it means the date of introduction of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill, 1976 in parliament. The Bill was introduced in the parliament on 28-01-1976. In terms of provisions contained in section 5 of the said Act and in particular sub-section (1) of section 5, any transfer of vacant land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, by any person who had held vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act has to be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. In terms of provisions contained in section 6 of the said Act, the holder of such vacant land was required to make a declaration before the Competent Authority as prescribed in sub-section (1) thereof. (4) Both Shri R. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta filed separate forms before the authorities as required in sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. (4) Both Shri R. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta filed separate forms before the authorities as required in sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. (5) With respect to the declaration made by Shri p. B. Mehta- respondent no. 5 herein, Competent authority passed an order dated 28-10-1987, holding that Shri P. B. Mehta was holding a total area of 5463. 18 sq. mtrs. of land as on 28-1-1976. The competent Authority therefore, permitting Shri P. B. Mehta to retain 1000 sq mtrs. of land being one unit for the city of Ahmedabad, declared the remaining land i. e. total of 4463 sq. mtrs of land as excess land. He therefore, ordered that the excess vacant land to the tune of 4463 sq. mtrs, held by Shri P. B. Mehta be acquired out of survey no. 216/2/1 of village Ghodasar. (6) Shri P. B. Mehta challenged the order passed by the Competent Authority on 28-10-1987 by preferring an appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal being appeal No. 301/1987. Such appeal was rejected by an order dated 19-06-1988. For the purpose of record, it may be noted that order dated 28-10-1987 passed by the Competent Authority was a common order for both the land holders namely Shri R. R. Tiwari and shri P. B. Mehta. The appellate order passed by the urban Land Tribunal on 19-06-1988 was also a common order disposing of appeals filed by Shri R. R. Tiwari as well as Shri P. B. Mehta. (7) No further proceedings were carried by the land holders and it is the case of the State Government that excess land of Shri P. B. Mehta was already taken over by the State Government before the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (here- in-after to be referred to as "the Repeal Act") came into force. (8) Though neither Shri R. R. Tiwari nor Shri P. B. Mehta preferred any further proceedings against the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the urban Land Tribunal, the petitioner-society filed the present petition challenging the said orders. (8) Though neither Shri R. R. Tiwari nor Shri P. B. Mehta preferred any further proceedings against the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the urban Land Tribunal, the petitioner-society filed the present petition challenging the said orders. At the first instance, the petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 16-07-1999 holding that the authorities have not taken possession of the land in question from the petitioner-society and that therefore, the orders under challenge in the petition do not survive and all proceedings under the said Act in respect of the land in question have abated. (9) Subsequently, however a review application was filed on behalf of the State Government being Misc. Civil Application No. 464/2004. The review application was disposed of by an order dated 25-06- 2004. The proceedings were bifurcated in two separate factual situations. On an admitted position that the State Government has not taken possession of the land belonging to Shri R. R. Tiwari which was sold to the petitioner-society by registered sale deed dated 04-02-1976, the learned Judge confined the earlier order dated 16-07-1999 passed in Special civil Application No. 7812/1993 to land originally owned by Shri R. R. Tiwari and not to the land owned by Shri P. B. Mehta. With respect to the land belonging to Shri P. B. Mehta, Special Civil application was revived keeping the question open whether the authorities had taken over the possession of the land before 30-03-1999. The learned Judge also kept open the contention of the petitioner that not only possession of the land of shri P. B. Mehta was not taken over by the authority by 30-03-1999, but that on merits also, Shri P. B. Mehta did not have excess vacant land. To the above order a detailed reference will be made at a later stage. Suffice it to say that on account of the said order dated 25-06-2004, the petition was revived qua the land belonging to Shri P. B. Mehta. It was therefore, placed before this Court for further hearing. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties at considerable length. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate Shri A. J. Patel appearing for the petitioner-society submitted that the authorities erred in holding that certain land belonging to Shri P. B. Mehta was in excess of the ceiling limit. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties at considerable length. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate Shri A. J. Patel appearing for the petitioner-society submitted that the authorities erred in holding that certain land belonging to Shri P. B. Mehta was in excess of the ceiling limit. It was urged that on the land which was sold to the petitioner-society by the said Shri p. B. Mehta, there was plinth level construction on the appointed day and that therefore, by virtue of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1567, considering the definition of vacant land, it ought to have been held that Shri P. B. Mehta did not have any land in excess to the ceiling limit. He submitted that the land on which construction had commenced on the appointed day and land appurtenant thereto ought to have been ignored for the purpose of calculating open land in the hands of Shri P. B. Mehta. It was further urged that construction so being carried out was with the permission of the authorities and after having building plans approved. He therefore, submitted that the authorities below erred in ignoring this important aspect of the matter. He submitted that the law as clarified by Honble Supreme Court in the case of smt. Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others (Supra), it should be declared that Shri P. B. Mehta never held any land in excess of ceiling limit. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority and Urban Land Tribunal should be quashed. " (1) He further submitted that the petitioner-society had purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed dated 04-02-1976. As a owner of the land, the petitioner-society has locus standi to urge before this Court that the order passed by the authorities as upheld by the Urban Land Tribunal in case of Shri P. B. Mehta is not legal. He submitted that the petitioner-society is vitally interested in the said issues and the present petition cannot be treated to have been filed by stranger to the litigation. He submitted that the petitioner-society is vitally interested in the said issues and the present petition cannot be treated to have been filed by stranger to the litigation. The reference was made to several provisions of the said Act to urge before this Court that the petitioner-society has vital interest in the land in question and was in fact required to be heard by the authorities before passing adverse orders and before taking possession of the land in question. (2) With respect to the question of possession of the land having been taken over before the introduction of the Repeal Act, he submitted that the authorities have never issued any notice to the petitioner-society though required under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act and that therefore, Panchnama of having taken the possession of the land in question has no legal force. He further submitted that entire block of land jointly held by Shri R. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta was sold to the petitioner-society. Between Shri R. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta, there was no demarcation of land by metes and bounds and both land owners jointly owned and co-possessed the entire block of land. He therefore, submitted that without any clear demarcation of portion of land possessed by Shri p. B. Mehta which was transferred to the petitioner- society, the respondents could not have legally and factually taken possession thereof. (3) Reliance was placed on the decision of the honble Supreme Court in the case of State of maharashtra and another v. B. E. Billimoria and others reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 336 to contend that any land on which on the appointed day, permission for construction has been granted should be excluded from the purview of vacant land. On the basis of the said judgement, it was also urged that when two persons own a land jointly, they should be treated as tenants in common and the right, title and interest in the land should be half-half and that both the co-owners should be treated to be jointly in possession of the land in question. The learned advocate for the petitioner particularly highlighted the observations of the honble Supreme Court to the effect that the provisions of the said Act being expropriatory should be construed strictly. The learned advocate for the petitioner particularly highlighted the observations of the honble Supreme Court to the effect that the provisions of the said Act being expropriatory should be construed strictly. (4) Reliance was also placed on the decision of the honble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera gupta v. State of West Bengal and others (Supra), to urge that any land on which the construction had commenced on the appointed day, should be excluded for the purpose of consideration of vacant land. (5) Reliance was placed on an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26-10-2005 rendered in Civil Application No. 6801/2005 in First appeal No. 7954/1999 to advance the contentions regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petition. For the same purpose reliance was also placed on the decision of the Learned single Judge in the case of Gobarbhai Ranchhodbhai sardhara and ors. v. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2478 , wherein the learned Judge found that the petitioner therein who had purchased the property by registered sale deed had a right to challenge the decision of the Tribunal pertaining to the tenancy rights over such property. (6) Reliance was also placed on the decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of mavjibhai Parbatbhai Trapasia v. State of Gujarat passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 498 and 699 of 1995 dated 04-10-2001 in which Division Bench was pleased to take into account additional documents produced before the Bench though not produced before the earlier Learned Single Judge and to come to the conclusion that the possession of the land was not taken over by the State Government in accordance with law. " ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned AGP Shri Siraj Gori opposed the petition. He urged that the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the land in question. He submitted that the land was purchased after the appointed day when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill was already presented before the Parliament. The introduction of the said Act was thus imminent and a matter of public knowledge. He pointed out that sale transaction took place on 04- 02-1976 i. e. days before the Act was brought into existence and made applicable to the State of gujarat from 17-02-1976. The introduction of the said Act was thus imminent and a matter of public knowledge. He pointed out that sale transaction took place on 04- 02-1976 i. e. days before the Act was brought into existence and made applicable to the State of gujarat from 17-02-1976. He further submitted that such sale transaction is required to be ignored for the purpose of the said Act. That there is no possibility unlike the sale transaction which takes place between 17-02-1976 and the appointed day to establish before the authorities that same was bona fide. He therefore, submitted that the sale is null and void to the extent sale seeks to transfer vacant land in excess of ceiling limit in the hands of the seller. In short, therefore, it was his contention that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority as upheld by the Urban Land Tribunal. " (1) It was also contended that there was no material placed before the authorities to establish that the construction had commenced on the appointed day on the land in question. He submitted that the competent Authority as well as Urban Land Tribunal have come to specific conclusions in this regard which are purely factual in nature. He therefore, submitted that in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such factual findings cannot be interfered with especially when the material which the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon to dislodge such factual findings was never before the authorities. He further submitted that veracity of the documents sought to be produced along with rejoinder filed by the petitioner at the belated stage of the petition, cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. He submitted that even otherwise material at the command of the petitioner is sketchy and does not clinch the issue regarding the commencement of the construction on the land in question on the appointed day. (2) On the basis of affidavit in reply filed by the government, he submitted that while processing the form filled by Shri P. B. Mehta under section 6 of the said Act, the Competent Authority issued draft statement as required under section 8 (3) of the said act on 23-12-1982. The draft statement was finalised by an order dated 28-10-1987 passed under section 8 (4) of the said Act. The draft statement was finalised by an order dated 28-10-1987 passed under section 8 (4) of the said Act. Final statement as required under section 9 of the said Act was issued on 23-11- 1987. Notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act was issued on 10-12-1987. In the meantime, Shri P. B. Mehta preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Competent Authority on 28-10-1987. The said appeal however, came to be rejected by Urban Land Tribunal on 19-06-1988. He further pointed out that after publication of notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act, a notification under sub-section (3) of section 10 was issued on 10-03-1991 which was published in the official gazette on 14-03-1991 whereby the land in question vested in the government free from all encumbrances. Notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 was issued on 05-10- 1991, the same was served to Shri P. B. Mehta and eventually the possession of land in question was taken over by the State Government on 04-01-1993 in presence of Panchas and Panchnama to that effect was also made. He therefore, submits that the possession of the land in question having already taken over by the Government before the Repeal Act was introduced, the proceedings under the said Act would not abate. " ( 6 ) ON the basis of submissions made, following questions need to be decided :1) The first question that calls for consideration is with respect to the locus standi of the petitioner. 2) It would also be necessary to ascertain whether the possession of the land in question was legally taken over by the State Government on the date when the Repeal Act was introduced. 3) Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that construction had commenced on the land in question on the appointed day and that therefore, the land and land appurtenant thereto, should have been ignored for the purpose of considering the vacant land in the hands of Shri P. B. Mehta. ( 7 ) IN so far as the question of locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, the same requires to be divided into two separate aspects. First is the question whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Competent authority as upheld by the urban Land Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN so far as the question of locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, the same requires to be divided into two separate aspects. First is the question whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Competent authority as upheld by the urban Land Tribunal. The second limb of the question of locus standi as I can see is whether the petitioner can urge before this court that the possession of the land in question even if the orders passed in the case of Shri P. B. Mehta are legal was never legally taken over by the state Government when the Repeal Act was introduced. ( 8 ) FIRSTLY I would like to consider whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Urban land tribunal. " (1) Factual aspects leading to this issue have already been recorded in the earlier portion of this judgement. However to recapitulate relevant factual data in this regard, it would emerge that the land in question earlier was jointly held by Shri R. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta. By two separate registered sale deeds, both dated 04-02-1976, Shri r. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta sold the same to the petitioner-society as owners of half of the land sold to the society which sale transaction took place after the appointed day, but before commencement of the Act. Shri P. B. Mehta filed a form under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act before the Competent Authority. Shri R. R. Tiwari also filed separately such a form. Both these forms were processed simultaneously and final order came to be passed by Competent Authority on 28-10-1987. In so far as Shri P. B. Mehta is concerned, it was declared that he holds land to the extent of ceiling limit of 4463 sq. mtrs. which should be acquired from the land sold to the petitioner-society. The appeal filed by Shri P. B. Mehta against the order of competent Authority was rejected by Urban Land tribunal on 19-06-1988. Shri P. B. Mehta thereafter took no further steps to challenge the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Urban Land tribunal. mtrs. which should be acquired from the land sold to the petitioner-society. The appeal filed by Shri P. B. Mehta against the order of competent Authority was rejected by Urban Land tribunal on 19-06-1988. Shri P. B. Mehta thereafter took no further steps to challenge the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Urban Land tribunal. The proceedings proceeded thereafter through various stages required under the said Act and the State Government after issuance of notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act, took possession of the land in question on 04-01- 1973. Sometimes thereafter, the petitioner-society filed the present petition and sought to challenge the orders passed by the Competent Authority and urban Land Tribunal. " ( 9 ) CLAUSE- (A) of section 2 of the said Act defines "appointed day" and in relation to any State to which the said Act applies at the first instance, appointed day means the date of introduction of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill, 1976 in parliament. Section 2 (a) reads as follows :" (a)"appointed day" means - (i) in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, the date of introduction of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Bill, 1976 in Parliament; and (ii) in relation to any State which adopts this Act under Cl. (1) of Art. 252 of the Constitution, the date of such adoption;"section 3 of the said Act provides that except as otherwise provided under the Act, on and from the commencement of the Act, no person is entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Section 3 of the said Act reads as follows :"3. Persons not entitled to hold vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Except as otherwise in this Act, on and from the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-section (2) of Sec. 1"section 4 of the said Act pertains to laying down ceiling limit. Sub-section (1) of section 4 in particular provides for different ceiling limits for different Urban agglomeration falling in different categories specified in schedule-I to the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 4 in particular provides for different ceiling limits for different Urban agglomeration falling in different categories specified in schedule-I to the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act deals with a situation wherein vacant land has been transferred by any person by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise after 17th day of February,1975 but before the appointed day. It provides inter-alia that such transfer (other than a bona fide sale under a registered deed for valuable consideration) notwithstanding, for the purpose of calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person, the land so transferred shall be taken into account. Sub- section (4) of section 4 reads as follows :" (4) (a)In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, if on or after the 17th day of february, 1975, but before the appointed day, any person has made any transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise (other than a bona fide sale under a registered deed for valuable consideration) of any vacant land held by him and situated in such State to any other person, whether or not for consideration, then for the purposes of calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person the land so transferred shall be taken into account, without prejudice to the rights or interests of the transferee in the land so transferred: provided that the excess vacant land to be surrendered by such persons under this Chapter shall be selected only out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer. (b) For the purposes of Cl. (a), the burden of proving any sale to be a bona fide one shall be on the transferor. Explanation- Where in any State aforesaid, there was or if in force any law prohibiting transfer of urban property in that State except under the circumstances, if any, specified therein, then for the purposes of this sub-section, any transfer by way of sale of such property, being vacant land, made by any person under a registered deed for valuable consideration in accordance with the provisions of such law or in pursuance of any sanction or permission granted under such law, shall be deemed to be a bona fide sale. "sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act provides inter-alia that where a person who had held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of the said Act has transferred such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the extent of the land so transferred shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act further provides that where excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under sub- section (1), the transfer of the excess vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. Section 5 of the said Act reads as follows :"5. Transfer of vacant land- (1)In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, where any person who had held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act has transferred such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the extent of the land so transferred shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person and the excess vacant land in relation to such person shall, for the purpose of this Chapter, be selected out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer and in case the entire excess vacant land cannot be so selected, the balance,or where no vacant land is held by him after the transfer, the entire excess vacant land,shall be selected out of the vacant land held by the transferee: provided that where such person has transferred his vacant land to more than one person,the balance, or, as the case may be, the entire excess vacant land aforesaid, shall be selected out of the vacant land held by each of the transferees in the same proportion as the area of the vacant land transferred to him bears to the total area of the land transferred to all the transferees. (2) Where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under sub-section (1), the transfer of the excess vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. (3) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance and in any State which, adopts this act under Cl. (1) of Art. 252 of the Constitution, no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this act shall transfer any such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until he has furnished a statement under Sec. 6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section (1) of sec. 10, and any such transfer made in contravention of this provisions shall be deemed to be null and void. "under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit is required to file a statement before the Competent Authority giving necessary details about the land held by him as provided therein. Provision to sub-section (1) of section 6 provides that in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act", the words "every person who held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit on or after the 17th day of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act and every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at such commencement" had been substituted. Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act reads as follows :" (1) Every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act shall, within such period as may be prescribed, file a statement before the Competent Authority having jurisdiction specifying the location, extent, value and such other particulars as may be prescribed of all vacant lands and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by him (including the nature of his right, title or interest therein) and also specifying the vacant lands within the ceiling limit which he desires to retain : provided that in relation to any State to which this act applies in the first instance, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act", the words, figures and letters "every person who held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit on or after the 17th day of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act and every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at such commencement" had been substituted. Explanation- In this section,"commencement of this act" means,- (i)the date on which this Act comes into force in any state; (ii) where any land, not being vacant land, situated in a State in which this Act in force had become vacant land by any reason whatsoever, the date on which such land becomes vacant land; (iii) where any notification has been issued under cl. (n) of Sec. 2 in respect of any area in a State in which this Act is in force, the date of publication of such notification. "section 8 of the said Act pertains to preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit. Section 8 of the said Act reads as follows :"8. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit.- (1) On the basis of the statement filed under Sec. 6 and after such inquiry as the Competent Authority may deem fit to make the Competent Authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the statement under Sec. 6. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit.- (1) On the basis of the statement filed under Sec. 6 and after such inquiry as the Competent Authority may deem fit to make the Competent Authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the statement under Sec. 6. (2) Every statement prepared under sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely : (i) the name and address of the person; (ii)the particulars of all vacant lands and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by such person; (iii)the particulars of the vacant lands which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit; (iv) the particulars of the right, title or interest of the person in the vacant land; and (v) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (3) The draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof. (4) The Competent Authority shall duly consider any objection received, within the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or within such further period as may be specified by the Competent authority for any good and sufficient reason, from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has been served under that sub-section and the Competent authority shall, after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit. "section 9 of the said Act pertains to final statement to be issued by the Competent Authority. Section 9 of the said Act reads as follows :"9. Final statement.- After the disposal of the objections, if any, received under sub-section (4) of sec. "section 9 of the said Act pertains to final statement to be issued by the Competent Authority. Section 9 of the said Act reads as follows :"9. Final statement.- After the disposal of the objections, if any, received under sub-section (4) of sec. 8, the Competent Authority shall make the necessary alterations in the draft statement in accordance with the orders passed on the objections aforesaid and shall determine the vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit and cause a copy of the draft statement as so altered to be served in the manner referred to in sub- section (3) of Sec. 8 on the person concerned and where such vacant land is held under a lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase agreement, or an irrevocable power of attorney, also on the owner of such vacant land. "section 10 of the said Act pertains to acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. Section 10 of the said Act reads as follows :"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.- (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under Sec. 9 on the person concerned the competent Authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that- (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interest in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the Competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the Competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1)the Competent authority may, by notification published in the official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the state Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3 ).- (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State government under sub-section (3), the Competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the Competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation.- In this section, in sub-section (1) of sec. 11 and in Secs. Explanation.- In this section, in sub-section (1) of sec. 11 and in Secs. 14 and 23, "state Government", in relation to- (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in a Union Territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under Sec. 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924), means the State government. " ( 10 ) FROM the statutory provisions which are relevant for our discussion noted here-in-above, it would appear that in a State to which this Act applies in the first instance, where any transfer of land takes place by a person who had held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act, has transferred such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the extent of the land so transferred has to be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. This in essence is the effect of sub- section (1) of section 5 of the said Act which further provides that excess vacant land to be taken possession of be selected out of the vacant land held by such person after such transfer and in case the entire excess vacant land cannot be so selected, the balance,or where no vacant land is held by him after the transfer, the entire excess vacant land,shall be selected out of the vacant land held by the transferee. Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act further provides that where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under sub-section (1), the transfer of the excess vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. (1) Provisions contained in Section 5 of the said act and in particular sub-section (1) and (2) thereof are somewhat different from the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act. As noted earlier, sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act deals with a situation where any land has been transferred on or after the 17th day of february, 1975, but before the appointed day. As noted earlier, sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act deals with a situation where any land has been transferred on or after the 17th day of february, 1975, but before the appointed day. In such a situation, such transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise has to be ignored and the land in question has to be reckoned in the hands of transferor for the purpose of ascertaining excess vacant land held by him. This however, is subject to an exception namely that any transfer which is bona fide transfer by sale under registered deed for valuable consideration, would come out of the mischief of Cl. (a) of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 4 castes the burden of proving any sale to be bona fide on the transferor. Under a situation covered under sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act, thus there is a presumption that transfer referred to therein is not bona fide transfer and in such a case the land in question shall be taken into account while calculating the extent of vacant land held by the transferor. The presumption however, is rebutable and the transferor establishing before the authority that the transfer of the land was through a bona fide sale under a registered deed for valuable consideration, the presumption can be rebutted and the land so transferred would then be kept out of consideration for the purpose of calculating the extent of vacant land held by the transferor. In contrast however, for transfer of vacant land covered under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act, the deeming fiction is ir- rebutable. The effect of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act would be that any transfer of vacant land by a person who had held vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of the said Act has to be ignored for the purpose of considering the excess vacant land held by such transferor of the land. The reason for this significant difference between the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said act and Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act is not difficult to discern. The reason for this significant difference between the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said act and Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act is not difficult to discern. Sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act covers a situation where a vacant land is transferred after 17th day of february, 1975, but before the appointed day whereas provisions of sub-section (1) of section 5 takes into its sweep transfer of vacant land held by person in excess of ceiling limit which transfer has taken place on or after the appointed day but before the commencement of the said Act. Under sub-section (4) of section 4 of the said Act, provisions are sought to be made to ignore any transfer of vacant land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise in anticipation of the introduction of the said Act and for the purpose of defeating the provisions contained therein. On the other hand, the transfers sought to be covered under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act are those which were entered into when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Bill, 1976 was already introduced in the Parliament and the introduction of the said Act was imminent and was a matter of common public knowledge. In case of all such transactions, the legislature mandates that the land so covered be included in the holding of the transferor for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of excess vacant land held by him. To enable the State to take possession of the excess vacant land, if the land held by the transferor is not sufficient to satisfy the order of declaration of excess vacant land, from the transferee, Sub- section (2) of section 5 of the said Act provides that in such cases, the transfer of the excess land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. (2) Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act requires any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act to file necessary declaration. (2) Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act requires any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act to file necessary declaration. Proviso to sub- section (1) of section 6 of the said Act requires any person who held vacant land in excess of ceiling limits on or after 17th day of February 1975, also to make such a declaration provided that same is in relation to any State to which the Act applies in the first instance. (3) Sub-section (1) of section 8 of the said Act requires that the Competent Authority has to prepare a draft statement in respect of person who has filed the statement under section 6 of the said Act. Sub- section (2) of section 8 of the said Act pertains to details that such a draft statement shall contain. Sub-section (3) of section 8 of the said Act requires that the draft statement shall be served on the person concerned calling upon him to make any objection to the draft statement within the time prescribed. Sub-section (4) of section 8 of the said act requires the Competent Authority to consider the objections received, if any, before passing the final order on the draft statement. (4) Section 9 of the said Act pertains to final statement to be issued by the Competent Authority under which the authority has to determine the vacant land held by person concerned in excess of ceiling limit. " ( 11 ) COMBINED reading of the above provisions would suggest that for any land which has been transferred by a holder of such land who held land in excess of ceiling limit where such transfer has taken place after appointed day but before the commencing of the said Act, such transfer is to be ignored for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of excess vacant land held by such person. Such person i. e. transferor is required to make a declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act which would also include the land so transferred by him in addition to his land holding. The Competent authority has to issue draft statement and serve the same on the person concerned i. e. declarant who has made declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. The Competent authority has to issue draft statement and serve the same on the person concerned i. e. declarant who has made declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act. The objections are required to be invited from such person and are required to be considered before passing final order thereon. Order under section 9 of the said Act passed by the competent Authority is also required to be communicated to the person concerned. All these provisions make it clear that with respect to any land which is transferred after the appointed day but before the commencement of the said Act by a person who held land in excess of ceiling limit, for the purpose of the said Act, such transfer is to be ignored. The issues arising thereunder are entirely between the transferor and Competent Authority. Unless and until the land so transferred or part thereof is released from the clutches of the provisions of the said Act, transferee gets no right with respect to such land. As noticed earlier, the legislature has made more stringent provisions with respect to transfer of the land which takes place after the appointed day but before the commencement of Act as compared to transfer of land which took place after 17th Day of February, 1975 but before the appointed day. Combined reading of the provisions noted here-in-above and the scheme of the said Act and intention of the legislature emerging from the same, would convince me to conclude that intention of the legislature was that such transfer be ignored for the purpose of the said Act. The land so sought to be transfered has to be reckoned as part of the holding of the transferor. He is the one who is required to make declaration under section 6 of the said Act. It is the transferor who is required to be served with draft statement and call for his objections. He is entitled to raise objections to the draft statement that the Competent Authority may issue. It is again the transferor who is to be served with the order passed under section 9 of the said Act by the Competent Authority. It is the transferor who is required to be served with draft statement and call for his objections. He is entitled to raise objections to the draft statement that the Competent Authority may issue. It is again the transferor who is to be served with the order passed under section 9 of the said Act by the Competent Authority. I am conscious of the fact that section 9 of the Act requires the order to be served in addition to person concerned, also on owner of such vacant land where such vacant land is held under a lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase agreement, or an irrevocable power of attorney. In the present case however, such is not the situation. For the purpose of the said Act, land is held by owner himself namely Shri P. B. Mehta in the present case. The petitioner-society therefore, had no right to be heard either before the authorities nor had any right to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority under section 8 (4) and section 9 of the said Act. The petitioner- society in fact had not even filed such an appeal before the Tribunal. It was only Shri P. B. Mehta who had filed appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal. Considering the provisions of the said Act and conclusions that I have reached here-in-above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the competent Authority as upheld by the Urban Land tribunal. ( 12 ) THE locus standi of the petitioner with respect to the question of the possession of the land in question however, stands on a different footing. It is not in dispute that the land in question was sold by registered sale deed dated 04-02-1976 by Shri p. B. Mehta to the petitioner-society. It is not in dispute that as per the sale deed, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner- society. It is not in dispute that Shri P. B. Mehta while filling up the forms under section 6 of the said Act did declare before the authority that the land in question has been sold and same is in possession of the petitioner-society. In so far as the question of possession of land in question is concerned, there was no ambiguity or confusion on record. In so far as the question of possession of land in question is concerned, there was no ambiguity or confusion on record. Between the petitioner-society and Shri P. B. Mehta, it was clear that the land was sold and possession thereof handed over to the buyer. The petitioner-society thus being in possession of the land in question had vital interest in safeguarding such possession. Such possession could not have been taken away without due process of law. If sought to be taken, the petitioner had every right to challenge such an action. In so far as the question of possession of the land in question is concerned, i find that petitioner-society is the person interested and, therefore, has locus standi to raise the said question before this Court. ( 13 ) IN view of the fact that I find that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by competent Authority and Urban Land Tribunal, the question of legality of such orders would pale into insignificance. In addition thereto, I find that there is sketchy material before this Court to permit the petitioner to urge the grounds of challenge sought to be pressed in service. The material which is sought to be pressed in service before this Court was not produced before the competent Authority or Urban Land Tribunal. The veracity of such material cannot be examined for the first time in a writ petition. Even otherwise there is no clinching irrefutable evidence which would establish on record that construction had commenced on the land in question on the appointed day. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am unable to agree with the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the competent Authority and Urban Land Tribunal require to be quashed on merits. ( 14 ) THIS brings me to the last but the vital aspect of the matter regarding rival claim about the status of the possession of the land in question. As noted earlier, stand of the State Government is after passing through all stages required under section 8,9 and 10 of the said Act, the possession of the land in question was taken over in presence of panchas on 04-01-1993. The learned advocate for the petitioner sought to oppose this proposition mainly on two grounds. As noted earlier, stand of the State Government is after passing through all stages required under section 8,9 and 10 of the said Act, the possession of the land in question was taken over in presence of panchas on 04-01-1993. The learned advocate for the petitioner sought to oppose this proposition mainly on two grounds. As noted, his first contention was that the entire block of land originally held jointly by Shri R. R. Tiwari and Shri P. B. Mehta was sold en block to the petitioner-society without any demarcation. He submitted that Shri R. R. Tiwari and shri P. B. Mehta jointly owned and possessed the land and there was no further sub-division of land by drawing of boundaries between them. In such a situation, possession of the land could not have been taken as sought to be suggested. He pointed out that the admitted position is that the possession of the land of Shri R. R. Tiwari which was sold to the petitioner-society has never been taken. He therefore, submitted that without any demarcation of boundaries it was not possible for the State government to take possession of the land in question. It was the further contention of the learned advocate Shri Patel that no notice as required under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued to the petitioner-society. Without issuance of notice, possession could not have been taken. " (1) In so far as first aspect of this question is concerned, it may be noted that in the review application filed by the State Government which came to be partially allowed by Learned Single Judge by order dated 25-06-2004, on behalf of the petitioner, it was urged that even according to the Government, possession of the land belonging to Shri R. R. Tiwari was not taken over by the State Government and the proceeding qua such land has abated and, therefore, at-least in respect of such land, the authorities ought to have permitted the petitioners to proceed further with construction on the land subject to compliance with other legal requirements. This contention in-fact found favour with the learned judge and necessary directions were issued whereby learned Judge was pleased to direct the authorities to permit the original petitioners to proceed with the construction on the land of Shri R. R. Tiwari which would mean land sold by Shri R. R. Tiwari to maninagar Vaishalipark Co-operative Housing Society limited subject to compliance with other legal requirements. It would be useful to reproduce the portion of the order passed by the learned Judge concerning this aspect which reads as follows :"5. At the same time, there appears to be considerable substance in the grievance being made by Mr aj Patel on behalf of the original petitioners that on the ground that the authorities wanted to challenge the order dated 16. 7. 1999 opponent No. 1 Society (original petitioner No. 1-Society) which had purchased the land in question from RR Tiwari and Pravinchandra B Mehta way back in January, 1976 have not been able to get permission for proceeding further with the construction, when construction upto plinth level had already been made before commencement of the proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976. There is also considerable substance in the submission of Mr AJ Patel that even according to the government, the possession of the lands belonging to RR tiwari was not taken over by the State Government and the proceedings abated in respect of the said lands upon repeal of the ULC Act, 1976 w. e. f. 31. 3. 1999. At least in respect of those lands, the authorities ought to have permitted the petitioners to proceed with further construction on the said lands subject to compliance with the other legal requirements such as building bye-laws etc. . 6. In view of the above, after condoning the delay in filing the review application, the order dated 16. 7. 1999 is modified to the following extent and subject to the following conditions:- (i) The order dated 16. 7. 1999 in Special Civil application No. 7812 of 1993 is confined to the lands originally owned by RR Tiwari and not to the lands owned by Pravinchandra Balkrishna mehta. (ii) As far as the lands belonging to Pravinchandra balkrishna Mehta are concerned, Special Civil application No. 7812 of 1993 is revived and the court keeps the question open whether the authorities had taken over possession of the said lands before 31. 3. (ii) As far as the lands belonging to Pravinchandra balkrishna Mehta are concerned, Special Civil application No. 7812 of 1993 is revived and the court keeps the question open whether the authorities had taken over possession of the said lands before 31. 3. 1999; (iii) At the hearing of Special Civil Application no. 7812 of 1993, it will be open to the petitioners to contend not only that the possession of the lands of Pravinchandra balkrishna Mehta was not taken over by the authorities by 31. 3. 1999 but that on merits also, pravinchandra Balkrishna Mehta did not have excess vacant land on the date of commencement of the ULC Act, 1976;7. MCA No. 464 of 2004 is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent only, subject to the condition that the authorities shall permit the original petitioners to proceed with the construction on the lands of RR Tiwari which would mean lands sold by RR Tiwari to Maninagar vaishalipark Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, subject to compliance with the other legal requirements at the earliest and the application which will be made by the petitioners for such permission shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application. The respondents shall forward a copy of this order to all concerned authorities. "8. Special Civil Application No. 7812 of 1993 is accordingly revived in respect of the lands of pravinchandra Balkrishna Mehta and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for early final hearing on 7th July 2004. " (2) It can therefore, be seen that before learned Single Judge in the review proceedings, the petitioner herein itself had taken a specific stand that the land transferred to the petitioner-society by Shri R. R. Tiwari since is no longer under the purview of the said Act, the petitioner-society should be permitted to proceed further with construction on such land. The stand of the petitioner was accepted by the learned Single Judge and while reviving the petition qua the land held by Shri P. B. Mehta later on transferred to the petitioner, the proceedings qua the land held by Shri R. R. Tiwari were not revived and in fact a direction was given to the authorities to permit the society to proceed with the construction in the land of Shri R. R. Tiwari which was sold to the petitioner-society subject to fulfillment of legal requirements. If there was no clear demarcation between the land sold by Shri R. R. Tiwari to the petitioner-society and the land sold by Shri P. B. Mehta to the petitioner- society, such bifurcation as sought for from the learned Single Judge in the review proceedings was not called for. The petitioner-society itself posed before the Learned Single Judge that the land sold by Shri R. R. Tiwari to the petitioner-society is different and distinct from the land sold by Shri P. B. Mehta to the petitioner-society. Only then the request for separating out the two portions for different treatment could have been made. Only then the request for permitting the petitioner-society to develop the land sold by Shri R. R. Tiwari could be sustained. In that view of the matter the legal contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner though appear attractive, cannot be accepted. In isolation, I would have been inclined to accept such contention. However, in the present case when the petitioner had adopted certain stand before the Learned Single Judge and sought and was granted direction to permit the petitioner-society to raise construction on the land sold by Shri R. R. Tiwari after obtaining permission from the authority, accepting the legal contentions of the present petition would run counter to such stand adopted by the petitioner in the review application. (3) With respect to the contention of not having issued any notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act, to the petitioner before taking possession, certain aspects need to be noted. The petitioner has not raised any such contention in the petition presumably since at the time when the petition was filed, question of possession of land had not assumed significance which it has now acquired on account of introduction of the Repeal Act. The petitioner has not raised any such contention in the petition presumably since at the time when the petition was filed, question of possession of land had not assumed significance which it has now acquired on account of introduction of the Repeal Act. Sadly, however, in the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner in response to the reply filed by the State Government also no such specific contention has been raised. However, this was one aspect of the matter which could have been immediately ascertained from the record. The entire issue hinges on whether notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued to the petitioner or not. Though not stated so in the pleadings, learned advocate for the petitioner had urged orally before this Court that no such notice was ever served on the petitioner. In the interest of justice and to ensure that such crucial point does not get decided by default, I had called for original files of the State Government from the learned AGP. The learned AGP Shri Siraj Gori had promptly made available the original files of both the declarants i. e. Shri R. R. Tiwari and shri P. B. Mehta. Upon perusal of the files and with assistance of the learned AGP as instructed by Shri Parmar, Deputy Mamlatdar who was present before the Court, I find that the petitioner is factually correct in contending that no notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said act was issued to the petitioner before taking possession of the land in question. On the basis of these factual aspects since the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is purely a legal contention, I find it appropriate that same be taken into consideration and decided. (4) Before adverting to the provisions contained under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act, it may be reiterated that by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04-02- 1976, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner-society. This aspect of the matter was not unknown to the state Government. Shri P. B. Mehta in his declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has clearly stated that the land has been sold through a registered sale deed dated 04-02-1976 and possession thereof is with the petitioner-society. This aspect of the matter was not unknown to the state Government. Shri P. B. Mehta in his declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has clearly stated that the land has been sold through a registered sale deed dated 04-02-1976 and possession thereof is with the petitioner-society. The State Government was therefore, very much aware about the fact that possession of the land in question is with the society and not with Shri P. B. Mehta. (5) Sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act requires that where any vacant land is vested in the state Government under sub-section (3), the Competent authority by a notice in writing may order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State government or to any person duly authorised in that behalf within 30 days of the service of the notice. Under sub-section (6) of section 10 of the said Act, if any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the Competent authority is empowered to take possession of the vacant land by force as may be necessary. This sub- section (6) of section 10 of the said Act envisages issuance of notice on any person who may be in possession of the land which has vested in the State government under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act. Sub-section (6) of section 10 of the said act authorises the competent officer to use force as may be necessary if any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5 ). The petitioner-society therefore, being in possession of the land in question was required to be issued notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act for handing over the possession of the land in question. Only upon service of such notice and refusal on part of the petitioner-society that the authorised officer could have taken possession; by force if necessary. In the present case, no notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued to the petitioner-society though the petitioner-society was, to the knowledge of the state Government, in possession of the land in question. In the present case, no notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act was issued to the petitioner-society though the petitioner-society was, to the knowledge of the state Government, in possession of the land in question. In absence of any such notice, attempt to take possession of land in question under sub- section (6) of section 10 of the said Act would be futile exercise. It may be true that Shri P. B. Mehta was served with notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the said Act. Such notice essentially is calling upon the recipient of the notice to handover the possession of the land in question. Shri P. B. Mehta was not in possession of the land which he had transferred to the petitioner-society under sale deed dated 04-02-1976. There was therefore, no occasion for him to respond to the notice issued by the State Government or to handover the possession. The possession was with the petitioner-society and could have been taken only from the petitioner-society by following necessary steps laid down under sub-section (5) and (6) of section 10 of the said Act. (6) Observations made by Division Bench of this court in the case of Mavjibhai Parbatbhai Trapasia v. State of Gujarat (Supra) in somewhat similar situation may be usefully reproduced : "22. If in fact several persons other than those who were the partners in the firm and who are the petitioners in Special C. A. No. 6194 have occupied the plots in question and if they had not been given any intimation of notice under the provisions of section 10 (5) of the Act, in our opinion, the respondent authorities could not have take possession of the so-called surplus land. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court that the subsequent buyers are the persons interested and they should be heard before issuance of draft statement. Looking to the law laid down in the case of Chhotabhai I. Patel v. State of gujarat, reported in 1994 (1) GLH 203, it is very clear that the respondent authorities could not have taken possession of the land in question in the the manner in which it has been taken over. If the panchnama dated 25/26. 3. Looking to the law laid down in the case of Chhotabhai I. Patel v. State of gujarat, reported in 1994 (1) GLH 203, it is very clear that the respondent authorities could not have taken possession of the land in question in the the manner in which it has been taken over. If the panchnama dated 25/26. 3. 1996 prepared by the respondent authorities is perused, it would reveal that there is a reference to some construction put up on the land in question. In our opinion, if the authorities taking possession of the land in question were aware of the fact that there was construction on the land in question and people were staying on the land in question, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to issue notices under section 10 (5) of the Act to the said persons before taking actual possession of the land in question. " (7) I, therefore, find that the possession of the land in question was not legally taken over by the state Government from the petitioner-society. It is well settled that only when the possession is taken over by the State Government lawfully before the introduction of the Repeal Act that the proceedings under the said Act would be saved from abatement. The possession of the land in question not having been taken over by the State Government from the petitioner-society before the said Act was repealed, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the petitioner shall continue to enjoy lawful possession thereof free from the clutches of the provisions of the said Act. I am conscious of the fact that no such specific prayer has been made in the petition. However, the said aspect is closely connected with the petition and the prayers made therein can be included within the clause of any other and further relief. ( 15 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed with the above declaration. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .