Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 40 (GUJ)

MADHUSUDAN BHANUPRASAD PANDYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2013-01-24

R.D.KOTHARI, RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. It is really painful that dishonesty is the order of the day. But then, there has to be a limit to everything, including that of obtaining orders from the Court by suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the facts by twisting them so as to see that the same suits the appellant-original petitioner. 2. The present appellant Shri Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya, describing himself as representing M/s. General Cement Pipes Co., is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 07.07.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9057 of 1998. 3. The facts of the case are not only long but are deliberately so presented by the learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner that, if possible, the Court gets confused in the facts of the case and passes an order as he was able to procure in earlier proceedings being Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1998. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is a tenant of land bearing city survey No.288/4 of mouje Chandlodiya, Taluka, City, District Ahmedabad, admeasuring 5160 sq. mtr. and he is running cement pipes factory. The appellant-original petitioner has taken this land on lease from late Shri Shivabhai Somabhai Patel. It is the case of the appellant-original petitioner that it was prior to Urban Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) coming into force that the appellant filled in form No.1 before the authorities as required under Section 6(1) of the said Act on 12.09.1976, as mentioned in the order passed by the Competent Officer and Additional Collector. Interestingly, that form came to be adjudicated by the competent authority and the competent authority declared land admesuring 4160 sq. mtr. as excess vacant land by order dated 26.08.1985. The order of the competent authority was taken in appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal by filing Appeal No.Ahmedabad-155 of 1990 and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 31.12.1990, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to SCA No.9057 of 1998. It will not be inappropriate to mention here that this order of the Tribunal dated 31.12.1990 is never challenged by the appellant-original petitioner. 3.1 It is the case of allottees that land admeasuring 25 mtr. each was allotted to them out of this excess vacant land on 29.01.1998. It will not be inappropriate to mention here that this order of the Tribunal dated 31.12.1990 is never challenged by the appellant-original petitioner. 3.1 It is the case of allottees that land admeasuring 25 mtr. each was allotted to them out of this excess vacant land on 29.01.1998. It is only on account of sheer dishonesty on the part of the appellant-original petitioner that these allottees, who are allotted land admeasuring 25 mtr. each on account of they having been identified as urban poor , are longing to have shelter /roof to hide their heads, are put to irreparable loss in light of the fact that the construction cost as it stood in 1998 has got multiplied not less than approximately eight to ten times. Be that as it may, the only difficulty is that the system does not have effective measures to check such frivolous litigation and to restrain people like the present appellant-original petitioner from misusing the system of delivery of justice. 3.2 One fine morning, i.e. on 03.03.1998, the appellant original petitioner (of SCA No.9057 of 1998) filed Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1998. For the reasons best known to the appellant, though a copy of SCA No.1584 of 1998 is produced before, the same is produced as it stood before amendment. A very plausible explanation is coming forward from the learned Advocate for the appellant that he did not represent the appellant-original petitioner at the relevant time. It is really surprising and shocking both that such an argument is advanced by learned Advocate for the appellant. Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1998 was filed drafting it very smartly. It was prayed that:- 21. (A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to grant appropriate land (at least 3000 sq. mtrs.) or any other appropriate measurement of land) which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper, to the petitioner firm so that the manufacturing activities may be carried on properly, on merits and in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. (B) The respondent authorities may be restrained from taking possession of the land bearing Survey No.288/4 admeasuring 5160 sq. mtrs. (B) The respondent authorities may be restrained from taking possession of the land bearing Survey No.288/4 admeasuring 5160 sq. mtrs. situated at village Chandlodiya, Taluka City District Ahmedabad till pending hearing and final disposal of the application under Section 20 of the Act, pending before the Revenue Secretary or the status-quo with regard to the possession of the said land may be maintained by the respondent authorities, till the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (emphasis supplied) 3.3 What is important is that this petition was filed despite an order passed by the competent authority on 01.08/09.1992, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C to SCA No.1584 of 1998. In this order, it is in no uncertain terms mentioned that, proceedings under Sections 9 and 10(3), This is again a wrong presentation of facts because the original order is in Gujarati. There it is mentioned, proceedings under Sections 9, 10(1), 10(3). Firstly, when a Gujarati typed copy is perused, there seems to be some inadvertent error and when the said copy is got translated into English, those errors seem to have been multiplied. What is mentioned about proceedings under Sections 9, 10(1), 10(3) and 10(6) is as under:- Statement under Section 9 in respect of the aforesaid land was sent to the land holder on 13.09.1985 and after service thereof, receipt of RPAD has returned back. Thereafter, notification No.ULC/U.2/Chandlodiya/38 is published in the Government Gazette on page No.827 on 15.05.1986 and notification of equal number dated 06.08.1984 under Section 10(3) has been published in the Government Gazette on page No.5 on 01.01.1987. Therefore, as mentioned in the said notification, land has been vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was dispatched on 06.07.1987 (who is none other than Shri Bharatkumar Lalbhai Patel, residing at 4, Shivnagar Society, Nava Wadaj, Ahmedabad-13) and the land holder was given opportunity of handing over possession of the land declared as surplus vacant land and to produce maps, but the land holder did not voluntarily hand over possession of the surplus land. Therefore, possession of the surplus land has been taken over in presence of the panchas under Section 10(6) on 24.07.1990. Land holder was given on 03.07.1990 to submit claim for compensation under Section 11 and in that connection, the matter was kept for hearing the land holder on 13.07.1990. Therefore, possession of the surplus land has been taken over in presence of the panchas under Section 10(6) on 24.07.1990. Land holder was given on 03.07.1990 to submit claim for compensation under Section 11 and in that connection, the matter was kept for hearing the land holder on 13.07.1990. The land holder did submit his written statement on 20.07.1990. (emphasis supplied) 3.4 There is not a word mentioned about this particular fact in petition being SCA No.1584 of 1998. This is required to be mentioned and repeated for the reason that learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner is basing his entire case on the order passed (obtained) on a willful misrepresentation of facts and certainly suppressing material facts. SCA No.1584 of 1998 was filed on 03.03.1998. The first order was passed on 05.03.1998. This is noticed from the original papers which are called for from the Registry. The order reads as under:- Notice returnable on 23rd March 1998. Direct service is permitted. 3.5 The petitioner must have known that on a first brush, it may not be possible to ask for interim relief and therefore, calculatedly a draft amendment was moved on 23.03.1998, which is not on affidavit. Not only that, it does not bear signature of either party (petitioner or the learned Advocate). This has come to notice because the original draft amendment (proposed amendment) is very much available for perusal. A very interesting story is coming out from that draft amendment. It is mentioned therein as under:- It is submitted that on or about 19th March 1998 at about 9-30 a.m. (what does it mean, on or about. Either it was 19th March or it was on any other day. One can understand mentioning of, on or about when it comes to time, but this is now the draft amendment proceeds) the respondent authorities alongwith ten surveyors and other officers had been to the land involved in this petition with a view to demark the 1,000 sq.meters of the land which they have held to he retained by the petitioner and remaining land s possession was tried to be taken away by them. For this purpose the said officers and persons have dug number of holes in the said land to fix the barbed wire fencing, with a view to take away the possession of the remaining land except 1000 sq.meters of land. For this purpose the said officers and persons have dug number of holes in the said land to fix the barbed wire fencing, with a view to take away the possession of the remaining land except 1000 sq.meters of land. At this juncture it was submitted by the petitioner to the said officers that if they are having any authority in writing it may be shown to the petitioner, but they could not show such authority to take possession of the said land, despite the fact that as per Annexure C though the compensation with regard to the said land has been fixed and decided but they have not paid the same to any of the concerned persons. (This is to be construed to mean that the petitioner is conscious of the contents of Annexure-C, i.e. order dated 01.08/09.1992). The petitioner has tried to have the photographs of the said officers who were trying to take possession of the said land. Therefore, the said officers have stopped the process of taking possession and after waiting for few hours all the officers and persons have left the place. Therefore petitioner apprehends that at any point of time the respondents are likely to take possession of the said land. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice to grant the status quo with regard to the said land till the final hearing and disposal of this petition. (emphasis supplied) 3.6 If it was the case of the petitioner right on that day that he is in possession, he could have prayed for not to be dispossessed of the land. But, the petitioner wanted to play smart with the Court and therefore, only prayed for status quo, which normally the Courts are inclined to grant because in a way it is an innocuous order. 3.7 By the said draft amendment, prayer clause-21(E) was also sought to be added, which reads as under:- By an order of injunction of this Hon’ble Court the respondent authorities be directed to maintain the status quo of the land mentioned in para 2 of the petition, till final hearing and disposal of this petition. (emphasis supplied) 3.8 On such assertions being made before the Court, the Court passed the following order on 23.03.1998:- Leave to amend. S.O. to 27/4/1998. Till then, Ad-interim relief in terms of para 21(E) of the petition. Direct service is permitted. (emphasis supplied) 3.8 On such assertions being made before the Court, the Court passed the following order on 23.03.1998:- Leave to amend. S.O. to 27/4/1998. Till then, Ad-interim relief in terms of para 21(E) of the petition. Direct service is permitted. 3.9 It is after having pocketed this order, the petitioner then proceeded with the final hearing of the petition and the petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 03.07.1998. 3.10 When it was put to the learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner as to where are the averments made in SCA No.1584 of 1998 about the petitioner being in possession and he having been served with order dated 01.08/09.1992, which, according to him contained incorrect averments, learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner boldly states that the duty of the appellant-original petitioner was over once he produced that order at Annexure-C to the petition. It is good of him to have produced copy of the order at Annexure-C and then mentioning in the draft amendment that, ..... despite the fact that as per Annexure C though the compensation with regard to the said land has been fixed and decided but they have not paid the same to any of the concerned persons..... . 3.11 Presupposedy he could not have known about the extent of land of which possession is taken away and it is only after taking the possession that the amount of compensation can be determined. But, as stated in the opening para, dishonesty is the order of the day. It is a peculiarity of some individuals who do not distinguish between right and wrong when it comes to seek favourable order and while doing so, even the Courts are not spared and the facts are presented in a manner which suits the ultimate object. 3.12 SCA No.9057 of 1998 came to be filed challenging the order passed by the authorities rejecting the application filed by the appellant-original petitioner under Section 20 of the Act. Form No.6 was filled in by the appellant-original petitioner on 12.09.1976 and the order is said to have been passed on 26.08.1985, which is conveyed to the petitioner by forwarding letter dated 11.09.1985. The application under Section 20 is stated to have been filed on 20.03.1990. The appeal filed before the Tribunal being Appeal No.Ahmedabad-155 of 1990 was dismissed on 31.12.1990. That decision in appeal is not challenged in any forum. The application under Section 20 is stated to have been filed on 20.03.1990. The appeal filed before the Tribunal being Appeal No.Ahmedabad-155 of 1990 was dismissed on 31.12.1990. That decision in appeal is not challenged in any forum. The petition (SCA No.1584 of 1998) came to be filed on 03.03.1998, which came to be disposed of 03.07.1998 and after having pocketed that order, on sheer misrepresentation of facts, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing SCA No.9057 if 1998. This petition was allowed at one stage by judgment and order dated 16.07.1999. Against that MCA No.268 of 2003 was filed by the State, which was rejected by the Court by order dated 02.08.2003. Being aggrieved of that, the State filed LPA No.1428 of 2004, which came to be allowed by Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 03.08.2004 and by that judgment and order, the Division Bench remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge. The operative part of the order of the Division Bench reads as under:- Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 16th July, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No.9057 of 1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. Once the main order passed in Special Civil Application No.9057 of 1998 is quashed and set aside, then the subsequent order dated 2nd August, 2003 passed in review petition i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.268 of 2003 is also required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. However, as requested by Mr. Once the main order passed in Special Civil Application No.9057 of 1998 is quashed and set aside, then the subsequent order dated 2nd August, 2003 passed in review petition i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.268 of 2003 is also required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. However, as requested by Mr. Pandya (i.e. learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-original petitioner), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case regarding possession, the main Special Civil Application i.e. 9057 of 1998 is remanded to the learned Single Judge who will decide the same afresh on its merits without being swayed away by any observations made in the order dated 16th July, 1999 passed by Y.B. Bhatt, J. (as he then was) in Special Civil Application No.9057 of 1998 and subsequent order dated 2nd August, 2003 passed by D.A. Mehta, J. in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.268 of 2003 strictly in accordance with law, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and after giving an opportunity to the original petitioner to bring legal representatives of deceased Shantaben original respondent no.3 of the main writ petition on record. The parties shall maintain status quo regarding land in question till the learned Single Judge decides the main writ petition. The State Government may prepare the panchnama showing the condition of the land as on today. It is hoped and trusted that the learned Single Judge may try to decide the writ petition as early as possible. Accordingly, with these observations and directions, this appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 3.13 Learned Single Judge decided SCA No.9057 of 1998 by judgment and order dated 07.07.1998, wherein, while recording the facts, the learned Single Judge has recorded in para-1 as under:- The petitioner has stated that he has not preferred any Appeal against the said order and in-fact further proceedings in terms of sections 9, 10(1), 10(3) and 11(7)(1) of the said Act were initiated by the Government in September 1992. (This is again on the basis of the copy produced before the learned Single Judge because otherwise, as referred to hereinabove, proceedings under Section 10(6) were also taken and the possession was also taken over by the authorities). (This is again on the basis of the copy produced before the learned Single Judge because otherwise, as referred to hereinabove, proceedings under Section 10(6) were also taken and the possession was also taken over by the authorities). The petitioner however made an application under section 20 of the said Act to the State Government for exemption in the year 1990. In para.10 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that after declaring the excess vacant land, further procedure was also initiated by the respondent no.2 authority and ultimately the land vested in the State Government. In the background of these facts, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07-04-1998 passed by the Government rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking exemption under section 20 of the said Act. In the impugned order, Government has recorded that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 24-07-1990 and all the procedure under section 10(1) and 10(3) of the said Act has been completed. It was only thereafter that the petitioner has applied for exemption. 3.14 At this juncture, it will be appropriate to reproduce contents of para-10 of SCA No.9057 of 1998, which are verbatim the same as that of SCA No.1584 of 1998. Para-10 reads as under:- 10. It is submitted that, after declaring the excess land, further procedure was also initiated by the respondent no.2 authority and ultimately the land is vested in the State Government under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner submits that till today, the land is being used by the petitioner s firm as if no excess land has been declared in the year 1985, by the respondent no.2 and the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to use whatever excess vacant land under the said act was favourable to them since passing of the order at Annexure A. (emphasis supplied) 3.15 The petitioner has specifically stated that, after declaring the excess land, further procedure was also initiated by the respondent no.2 authority and ultimately the land is vested in the State Government. 4. The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the case pleaded by the appellant-original petitioner and has decided as under:- 4. From the materials on record it is clear that the petitioner himself has averred in the petition that the orders passed by the authorities under the said Act declaring 4160 sq. mtrs. 4. The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the case pleaded by the appellant-original petitioner and has decided as under:- 4. From the materials on record it is clear that the petitioner himself has averred in the petition that the orders passed by the authorities under the said Act declaring 4160 sq. mtrs. of land of the petitioner, is excess vacant land, had become final and the petitioner had not challenged th same before any authority or Court. In para 10 of the petition, the petitioner has in fact stated that after declaring the excess land, further procedure was also initiated by the respondent no.2 authority and ultimately the land is vested in the State Government under the provisions of the said Act. This is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner. Nowhere in the petition or in the rejoinder the petitioner has stated that no notice was received by the petitioner from the Government regarding taking the possession of the land in question. Despite a clear averment in the affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent no.2, in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has not controverted this important aspect of the matter. It is thus clear that entire procedure of vesting the land in Government and taking the possession thereof under section 10 of the said Act was completed way back in the year 1990. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not state whether these facts were brought to the notice of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1584/1998 which came to be disposed of by order dated 03-07-1998. (as is mentioned hereinabove and as is recorded, there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner of suppressing material facts and misleading the Court and obtaining favourable order on such basis. When it is put to the learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner, learned Advocate submitted that the duty of the appellant-original petitioner was over once he produced that order at Annexure-C to the petition and it was not required of him to make any specific averment with regard to contents of that document). When it is put to the learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner, learned Advocate submitted that the duty of the appellant-original petitioner was over once he produced that order at Annexure-C to the petition and it was not required of him to make any specific averment with regard to contents of that document). In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that the question of the possession of the petitioner was not directly at issue in the said litigation, I am unable to ignore the overwhelming material on record in the present petition to the effect that indisputably, the possession of the land in question was taken by the Government and after passing through several stages, land had vested in the Government. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contentions on behalf of the petitioner that upon repeal of the said Act, the proceedings should abate. The impugned order passed by the Government rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 20 of th said Act also cannot be interfered with. The learned A.G.P. Shri P.R. Abichandani relies on the decision of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi &anr. V/s. State of Gujarat &ors.reported in 2002(3)GLR page-2592, wherein the Learned Judge had relied on the Panchnama of taking over of the possession supported by the affidavit filed by the competent authority as sufficient proof that possession has been taken over. The learned A.G.P. Shri Abichandani pointed out that the said decision of the Learned Single Judge is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. etc. v/s. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1608 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Panchnama of taking possession even when the panchas had subsequently filed an affidavit, with their signatures obtained on blank papers and they had not gone to the site. (emphasis supplied) 4.1 That clinches the issue because in this second inning, learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner has tried to agitate that panchnama dated 24.07.1990, a copy of which is produced at page No.135 of this LPA, which is qua the appellant-original petitioner, goes to show that the possession was not taken over. (emphasis supplied) 4.1 That clinches the issue because in this second inning, learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner has tried to agitate that panchnama dated 24.07.1990, a copy of which is produced at page No.135 of this LPA, which is qua the appellant-original petitioner, goes to show that the possession was not taken over. The aforesaid attempt on the part of the appellant-original petitioner is not only ill-designed but also ill-motivated inasmuch as, it is a typed copy of the panchnama which gives rise to a situation on the basis of which an inference can be drawn that the same is not a valid document. The panchnama initially proceeds to mention the facts and then describes four boundaries of the property and then it is specifically mentioned that:- ..... Factory of General Cement Pile. [1] In view of the aforesaid particulars, as the land is open at the place, possession is taken over free from any encumbrances. [2] As unauthorised construction is existing at the place in terms of the aforesaid details, exparte possession along with construction is taken over, free from any encumbrances. [3] As there is unauthorised construction at the place, possession cannot be taken over. [4] Others: 4.2 Atleast in the copy which is on record, there is no marking or clauses so tic-marked at the time of drawing panchnama. Needless to say that this document is required to be appreciated in light of unambiguous averments made in order dated 01.08/09.1992 which was issued by the authority for payment of compensation . 4.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner invited attention of the Court to yet another panchnama, which is dated 16.06.1997, a copy of which is produced at page No.120 of this LPA. It is with regard to same land, but there, the party is land owner. There again, out of the aforesaid four clauses, three clauses are found. The fourth clause reads as under:- In survey no.288/4 some portion is open, where- (illegible) cement factory is situated. It is with regard to same land, but there, the party is land owner. There again, out of the aforesaid four clauses, three clauses are found. The fourth clause reads as under:- In survey no.288/4 some portion is open, where- (illegible) cement factory is situated. 4.4 None of these clauses bear any tic-mark and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this particular document is required to be discarded, more particularly in light of the decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra), where the Hon’ble the Apex Court has upheld the validity of Panchnama of taking possession even when the panchas had subsequently filed an affidavit to the effect that their signatures obtained on blank papers and they had not gone to the site. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no doubt even remotely that SCA No.1584 of 1998 was filed before this Court only with a view to get undue advantage from the legal proceedings. Though order dated 01.08/09.1992 was produced at Annexure-C, no specific averment with regard to the same was made in the petition. This position is sought to be explained by the learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner by saying that the duty of the appellant-original petitioner was over once he produced that order at Annexure-C to the petition. 5.1 This Court is of the opinion that contempt notice is required to be issued against the present appellant-original petitioner in SCA No.1584 of 1998, but the Court restrains itself from doing so because the Court is of the opinion that issuance of any such notice is likely to result into further delay in exercising the right to develop the property by the allottees, who are each allotted a mere 25 sq. mtr. of land in the year 1998 and who are waiting for shelter to be constructed to keep their families protected from seasonal hazards, chilling winter, heavy monsoon and scorching heat of Ahmedabad which crosses 45 degree centigrades. Only with a view to see that by excuse of defending himself in contempt proceedings and the order of status quo granted in his favour is not used as a tool to deprive all these allottees, the Court takes a lenient view in the matter and does not order issuance of notice for taking action for criminal contempt against the appellant-original petitioner. 6. 6. Last but not the least, it will be appropriate here to refer to the order passed by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.3158 of 2010, which was decided by order dated 22.03.2010. For ready perusal, the order is reproduced hereunder:- The petitioner claims to be the tenant in possession in regard to certain vacant land which according to the State Government has vested in it as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The State also claims that it has taken possession of the vacant land and has even distributed it among the members of weaker section (respondents 5 to 29) and they are in possession. Petitioner s writ petition (WP No.9057/1998 challenging the order dated 5.10.1998 by which his application under Section 20 of the Act was dismissed) having been dismissed, a Division Bench admitted the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner and initially granted an order of status quo which was subsequently vacated at the instance of respondents 5 to 29. Being aggrieved by the vacation of status quo, the petitioner has filed this SLP. On 11.2.2010, while ordering notice, we directed the parties to maintain status quo. It is not in dispute that the disputed portion of the land is a vacant land. While petitioner contends that it is in his possession, the State and its allottees submit that the allottees of the State are in possession. Interests of justice would be best served if the status quo as on date is maintained and the Letters Patent Appeal pending before the High Court is disposed of on an early date. We, accordingly, dispose of this SLP with a request to the High Court to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal expeditiously maintaining the status quo till then. (emphasis supplied) 6.1 It is almost three years by now that the High Court is not able to act on the request made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court. The Court does not go into the reasons for the same, but deems it proper to mention that one of the reasons is seeking time on one ground or the other by the learned Advocates. Let us not go into that. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge in SCA No.9057 of 1998 is upheld. 8. Let us not go into that. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge in SCA No.9057 of 1998 is upheld. 8. Now that the appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge is upheld, this Court directs the respondent authorities to see that necessary facilities are provided to all the allottees so as to see that they are able to construct shelter in the land, which is mere 25 sq. mtr. per family. It will be a matter of appreciation if the authorities take a humanitarian approach in the matter and see that while allottees undertake work of construction of shelter, other facilities like sewage, drinking water, electricity and road usable by human-beings are provided at the earliest. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that this is a matter wherein original record of SCA No.1584 of 1998 and SCA No.9057 and 1998 is referred to extensively, Registry is directed to keep this original record in safe custody, not to be accessed by anybody without prior permission of this Court.