Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The present petition is filed by heir of deceased Jethabhai Ishwarbhai:- Jashbhai Jethabhai Patel, Power of Attorney Holder. The petition is filed on 02.03.2000 and the same is affirmed on the same day praying that:— “29) (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be graciously pleased to admit this petition and BE PLEASED to grant declaratory reliefs in favour of the petitioner, whereby (A/1) IT BE declared that the State has not taken possession of S.No.169/1 to the extent of 1863-00 sq. mt. land, during the life time of ULCR ACT, 1976 particularly from 3-6-94 to 30- 3-99, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH FAILURE to take possession before 30-3-99, it be declared that the State if not now entitled to take such possession under New Enactment Repealing Act 15 of 1999, and CONSEQUENTLY— (A/2) PETITIONER’S title to the land S.No.169/1 alongwith possessory right remains undisturbed and indefeasible in law and the question of determining compensation under Section 11 of Old Act would not survive. (B) AS A further consequence, the impugned notices Annexure-”J” and Annexure-”K” purporting to be notices under Section 11 be declared inoperative and not enforceable against petitioners, in as much as the State cannot claim to take possession of disputed land after 30-3-99 when principal Act of 1976 has been repealed and has ceased to operate. ALTERNATIVELY, (C) IF, IN ANY EVENT, upon perusal of materials placed on record by respondents, the Hon’ble High Court comes to the conclusion that the action of the State, which purports to have taken possession of S.No.169/1 before 30-3-99 is valid, then in that event– (C/1) THE petitioners be held entitled to fall back upon general law relating to compensation as provided in Land Acquisition Act 1984 for land S. No. 169/1 1863-00 sq. mt. in as much as the Special Law i.e. ULRC Act 1976, which was applicable, prior to 30-3-99, including section 11 thereof is repealed w.e.f. 30-3-99 and cannot be invoked after 30-3-99. (C/2) IT be also declared that Section 4 proviso of New Act 15 of 1999 does not afford any protection to cases under Section 11 filed if any, after 30-3-99. (emphasis supplied) 1.1 The case of the petitioner is very succinctly clear from the prayer that follows in Clause-(D) of Para- 29. (C/2) IT be also declared that Section 4 proviso of New Act 15 of 1999 does not afford any protection to cases under Section 11 filed if any, after 30-3-99. (emphasis supplied) 1.1 The case of the petitioner is very succinctly clear from the prayer that follows in Clause-(D) of Para- 29. The same reads as under:— “(D) AS A CONSEQUENCE, directions be issued to Respondent No. 2 to treat 30.3.99, as the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and determine compensation on the basis of market value of disputed land S. No. 169/1 which according to petitioner is Rs. 1200-00 per sq. mts. as on 30-3-99. 2. On perusal of the averments made in the petition, there is no case pleaded as is sought to be pleaded by learned Advocate Mr. Ravani today before this Court. 3. The petitioner was motivated to move a draft amendment to the prayer clause only, after an affidavit was filed by one Shri T.L. Chauhan, Additional Collector (Co-ordination), Vadodara, wherein Para-4 reads as under:— “4. I say and submit that the Competent Authority has passed the order declaring the land excess admeasuring 1863 sq. mt. vide order dated 29-9-86. I say and submit that looking to the proceedings the further progress as per record is that the notification under Section 10(3) has been issued on 20-8-87, which has been duly published on 24-9-87 and accordingly the land in question has been vested into the government and no right title remains in the hands of the petitioner. I say that, thereafter a notice under Section 10(5) had been issued on 20/11/87, which has been duly served upon petition on 20-11-87. Thereafter the possession of the land in question has been taken over on 24-11-93. The same has been voluntarily handed over by the land holder. Accordingly the position as on today and even on the date of Repeal Act having come into force, the possession of the land in question was in the hands of the government. What is stated above is true which I believe to be true. Solemnly affirmed at Baroda on this 20 day of January 2001.” 3.1 It is after this affidavit is filed, learned Advocate for the petitioner sought permission to amend the prayer clause, which was granted on 07.09.2001, as mentioned in the amendment carried out by the learned Advocate on 10.09.2001. Solemnly affirmed at Baroda on this 20 day of January 2001.” 3.1 It is after this affidavit is filed, learned Advocate for the petitioner sought permission to amend the prayer clause, which was granted on 07.09.2001, as mentioned in the amendment carried out by the learned Advocate on 10.09.2001. By this amendment, prayer Clause-29-A/1/1 is added, which reads as under:— “A/1/1 It be declared that the action of taking possession under alleged Panchnama dated 24-11-93 produced for the first time after 20- 1-2001 and notice under Section 10(5) is illegal, inoperative and not binding to the petitioners and not enforceable in any manner by the respondents to the detriment of the petitioners.” 3.2 What is important to be noted is there are no averments made in the petition in support of the aforesaid prayer, making out a case as to why notice under Section 10(5) is illegal, in-operative and not binding to the petitioners and not enforceable in any manner by the respondents to the detriment of the petitioners. In view of that, this Court is of the opinion that the petition is filed merely for taking chance. It is only after the affidavit was filed by the authorities, the petitioner thought it fit to amend the prayer clause and make additional prayer. In absence of any averment and the contents as to why notice under Section 10(5) is illegal, in-operative and not binding to the petitioners and not enforceable in any manner by the respondents to the detriment of the petitioners, the Court cannot consider to grant any such relief. 3.3 Coming to the prayer as it stood before amendment, the prayer is only that, “IT BE declared that the State has not taken possession of S.No.169/1 to the extent of 1863-00 sq. mt. land, during the life time of ULCR ACT, 1976 particularly from 3-6-94 to 30-3-99, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH FAILURE to take possession before 30-3-99, it be declared that the State if not now entitled to take such possession under New Enactment Repealing act 15 of 1999”. Now, as stated in the affidavit filed by the additional Collector (Coordination), Vadodara affirmed on 20.01.2001, there is no material on record to come to conclusion that possession was not taken over. Not only that, the averment in the affidavit is that, “..... the possession of the land in question has been taken over on 24-11-93. Now, as stated in the affidavit filed by the additional Collector (Coordination), Vadodara affirmed on 20.01.2001, there is no material on record to come to conclusion that possession was not taken over. Not only that, the averment in the affidavit is that, “..... the possession of the land in question has been taken over on 24-11-93. The same has been voluntarily handed over by the land holder.....”. That being so, it is the end of the matter. 3.4 Besides, from the contents of Annexure-K to the petition, which is a communication from the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector’s Office under ULC dated 13.08.(year illegible), it is seen that notice was issued to Shri Jashbhai Jethabhai, since Jethabhai Ishwarbhai had died, for compensation under Section 11 of ULC Act, 1976. This communication is produced by the petitioner, meaning thereby the petitioner did know that possession is already taken. Despite that, a declaration is sought that, “..... the State has not taken possession of S.No.169/1 to the extent of 1863-00 sq. mt. land, during the life time of ULCR ACT, 1976 particularly from 3-6-94 to 30-3-99.....”. This shows that the entire petition is based on incorrect narration of facts. 4. The petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs, but taking into consideration the fact that Jethabhai Ishwarbhai had died and now Jashbhai Jethabhai is on record, a benefit of doubt is given about incorrect narration of facts in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.