Judgment 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed to quash and set aside orders passed on 31.12.1989 and 30.03.1998 and notification issued on 27.09.1990 by the competent authority under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’ for short), declaring 2023.50 sq.mtrs. of land of survey No.434/1 paiki, Block No.380 of village: Pal, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat as excess vacant land and further prayed to uphold and confirm the order of the Competent Authority dated 14.06.1990. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing survey No.434/1 paiki, Block No.380 of village: Pal, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat, admeasuring 1 Acre i.e. 4047 sq.mtrs. belonged to Lakhiben, wd/o Nathubhai Kalyanji. The said land was agricultural land and fell in the Zone of ULC Master Plan of Surat Urban Aglomoration (hereinafter referred to as 'SUDA' for short). The said Lakhiben died on 5.8.1988 leaving a will dated 7.2.1984, by which the said land was bequeathed to the petitioners. The said land was mutated in the name of the petitioners vide entry No.4155, which was certified on 24.4.1990. Thereafter, the petitioners were wrongly advised to file form No.1 declaring their land as agricultural land and was not a 'vacant land' as it was in agricultural zone of the Master Plan. 2.2 Thereafter, the Competent Authority after holding inquiry vide order dated 14.6.1990 held that though the said land was agricultural land and was in the agricultural zone of the ULC Master Plan of SUDA, the said land came in residential zone and became vacant and therefore, the land was rightly in possession of the petitioners. The Competent Authority granted deductions of about 1384.57 sq.mtrs. of land for road and declared 2812.42 sq.mtrs. of land of petitioners' holding. The Competent Authority granted 3000 sq.mtrs. of land of the petitioners and held that the petitioners were not holding any land in excess of the Ceiling limit. Thereafter, the State Government issued Notification dated 14.9.1995 under Section 34 of the Act to show-cause as to why the said order of Competent Authority dated 14.6.1990 should not be revised. The petitioners submitted their explanation to the State Government, which is pending and no order has been passed therein. Thereafter, the State Government issued Notification dated 14.9.1995 under Section 34 of the Act to show-cause as to why the said order of Competent Authority dated 14.6.1990 should not be revised. The petitioners submitted their explanation to the State Government, which is pending and no order has been passed therein. 2.3 Thereafter, ULC Act, 1976 had been repealed by the Parliament by Act 15 of 1999 and all proceedings pending under the said Act came to be abated. The petitioners were surprised to know from the Surveyor of the office of respondent No.1 that their land has been declared excess in Form No.1 filed by respondent No.3. The petitioners thereafter through their advocate made an inquiry and came to know that the Competent Authority by order dated 31.12.1989 declared 7282 sq.mtrs. of land as excess land and out of survey No.434/1, 2023.50 sq.mtrs. of land was declared as excess land. The Competent Authority had also published Notification dated 27.9.1990 under Section 10(3) of the Act and also passed order dated 30.3.1998, determining compensation of Rs.10117.50/- payable towards 2023.50 sq.mtrs. of land of survey No.434/1. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders of the Competent Authority dated 19.12.1989, 27.9.1990 and 30.3.1998, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. Heard Mr. D.D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M.I. Hawa, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Manan Maheta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 was deleted vide order of this Court dated 21.1.2011. 4. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. D.D. Vyas, assisted by Mr. M.I. Hawa, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings pursuant to the declaration under Section 6(1) made by Revashankar Khusaldas Patel is vitiated and null and void. He further submitted that land of the petitioners is an agriculture land and hence, ULC Act would not be applicable and mandatory procedure under Section 8(3) read with Rule 5 is not followed. Similarly, order under Sections 9 and 10(3) are also vitiated on the same ground. So far as proceedings under Section 10(5) are concerned, it is illegal and null and void because notice is not issued to the person in possession. He further submitted that since the proceedings upto Section 10(3) of the Act are not legal and null and void, no action thereafter could have been taken. So far as proceedings under Section 10(5) are concerned, it is illegal and null and void because notice is not issued to the person in possession. He further submitted that since the proceedings upto Section 10(3) of the Act are not legal and null and void, no action thereafter could have been taken. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners then submitted that notice under Section 10(5) is required to be issued to the person, who is in possession of the property and notices said to have been issued to person, who has filed the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act which is not proved to have been served. It is further the case of the petitioners that authority had not produced cogent materials with regard to service of notice to Revashankar Khusaldas Patel. Therefore, the proceedings of taking possession are illegal and null and void and therefore, the Government cannot be said to have taken possession legally and hence, provisions of Repeal Act would apply and the Government cannot claim that they are in possession of the aforesaid property. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that as per the decision of the Division Bench, provisions of Section 8(3) read with Rule 5 are mandatory. He then submitted that the petitioners are in possession of land as per the order dated 14.06.1990 passed by the Competent Authority and petitioners' names ere also entered in the revenue records, which were certified on 10.2.1990. He further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the property and had vital interest in safeguarding such possession and therefore, the same cannot be taken away or disturbed without due process of law. He then submitted that as the Government claims to have vested the property in question free from all encumbrances by issuing Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, Revashankar Patel would not have interest in the property. He further submitted that petition is not delayed on the grounds that the revision against judgment in favour of the petitioners was pending on the date of coming into force of Repeal Act of 1999 and as soon as the petitioners came to know about the inquiry proceedings of Revashankar, the present petition was filed. He further submitted that authority has not followed the mandatory provisions under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act in taking the possession of the land. He further submitted that authority has not followed the mandatory provisions under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act in taking the possession of the land. 4.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that panchnama does not give any clear picture regarding the possession of land in question and as Revashankar was the joint owner and as open land was not clearly demarcated, the actual possession is not taken. He further submitted that the petitioners are daughters and heirs of late Lakhiben and therefore, execution of Will in their favour is not illegal and Revashankar Patel had no interest in the land in question. 4.3 In this regard, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Vyas relied on the following decisions: i) AIR 2013 SC 1793 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram; ii) 2011 AIR SCW 6240 in the case of Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar and Anr; iii) 2009 AIR SCW 5277 in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta & Ors.; iv) 2009(3) GCD 2543 (Guj.) in the case of Niranjan Maganlal Mehta v. Competent Authority & Addl. Collector & Ors.; v) Special Civil Application No.7812 of 1993 dated 15-2-2006 in the case of Maninagar Vaishalipark Co-Op. Housing Society Limited v. Competent Authority and Deputy Collector; vi) 2009(0) GLHEL-HC-220969 in the case of Manchiben Thakorebhai Prabhubhai Patel & 15 Ors. v. Competent Authority; and vii) 2006(3) G.L.H.487 in the case of Indrajitsing P.Geel Vs. Competent Authority & Deputy Collector & Anr. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Manan Maheta for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, taking this Court through the record, submitted that as per the revenue entry No.4155, land of Survey No.434/1 of Block No.380 admeasuring 4027 sq.mtrs. of Village Pal was shown to be of the joint ownership of Shri Revashankar Khushalbhai and Lakhiben, Wd/o Nathubhai Kalyanji. He further submitted that upon the death of Lakhiben, as a Will was executed in favour of Vinaben and Lataben, their names were entered in the revenue record, however, when Shri Revashankar declared his holdings as co-owner of Survey No.434/1 of Block No.380 of Village as to his share in the proceedings initiated by him being ULC Case No.ULC/6(1)6/631, order dated 31-12-1989 was passed by the competent authority declaring 7282 sq.mtrs. of land including land of Survey No.434/1 of Block No.380 admeasuring 2023.50 sq.mtrs. as excess land. of land including land of Survey No.434/1 of Block No.380 admeasuring 2023.50 sq.mtrs. as excess land. He further submitted that Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners, though being aware of the joint ownership of Smt.Lakhiben and Shri Revashankar, submitted a wrong information in Form No.6(1) on 10-4-1990 and misled the authority leading to passing of order dated 14-6-1990. He further submitted that the order dated 31-12-1989 being prior in point of time has attained finality and it has been passed by the competent authority keeping in mind the declaration of holdings of Revashankar and other aspects and therefore, the present petition under the ULC Act challenging the order dated 31-12-1989 passed against Shri Revashankar declaring half of the disputed land of Survey No.434/1 of Village Pal which has attained finality after almost a delay of 10 years under extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He, therefore, urged to dismiss this petition. 6. It is pertinent to note at this stage that this petition has been preferred on behalf of Smt. Vinaben Lavjibhai and Smt.Lataben Vasrambhai by their Power of Attorney Holder, Dayabhai Keshavbhai Patel in 1999 and it has come on record that both the sisters namely, Smt. Vinaben Lavjibhai and Smt.Lataben Vasrambhai have presumably sold/given their land to Dahyabhai Keshavbhai Patel by way of the above referred Irrevocable General Power of Attorney and as such, they have no direct interest in the said land. 7. It is the fact that Shri Revashankar Khushaldas Patel was joined by the petitioners herein as respondent No.3 in the petition. Referring to the cause title, it is mentioned that “respondent No.3 deleted as per Hon’ble Court’s order dated 21-1-2011”. Order dated 21-1-2011 reads as under: “Learned Advocate for the petitioners has addressed note dated 13.10.2010 to the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat stating that respondent no.3 has expired and he seeks permission to delete respondent no.3. Permission is granted. Stand over to 01.02.2011.” It appears from the above order that note dated 13-10-2010 was submitted by learned advocate, Mr. Dhaval Vyas addressed to the Registrar, the relevant portion of the said note dated 13.10.2010 reads thus: “It would appear from the endorsement in the cause list that the resp.no.3 has expired and therefore the notice is not served upon him. Dhaval Vyas addressed to the Registrar, the relevant portion of the said note dated 13.10.2010 reads thus: “It would appear from the endorsement in the cause list that the resp.no.3 has expired and therefore the notice is not served upon him. The petitioners would represent the estate and be the representatives of resp.no.3 and therefore the petitioners may be permitted to delete the resp.no.3 as party respondent in the aforesaid petition. The petitioners do not seek any reliefs against or against the interest of resp. no.3.” It appears from the above note dated 13-10-2010 that on the basis of endorsement in the cause list, the petitioners have come to know that respondent No.3 has expired and accordingly, notice issued upon respondent No.3 had returned unserved. It further appears that as per the petitioners, they would represent the estate and be the representatives of respondent No.3 and therefore, permission was sought to delete respondent No.3 as party respondent in the aforesaid petition. It is further mentioned that the petitioners do not seek any relief against or against the interest of respondent No.3. 8. This Special Civil Application appears to have been filed on 10.8.1999 joining Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel of Village Pal, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, as respondent No.3, allegedly being necessary party. From the above discussion, it is clear that till date, not a single document has been forthcoming on record to show as to on which date above respondent No.3-Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel had passed away. It is surprising to note that as referred in the note dated 13.10.2010 submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners, they came to know on the basis of the endorsement reflected in the cause list that respondent No.3-Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel had passed away and accordingly, the petitioners herein have submitted note dated 13.10.2010 as referred hereinabove. It is more surprising that the petitioners herein alleged to have represented the estate and claimed themselves as representatives of respondent No.3-Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel and accordingly, they sought to delete respondent No.3 as party respondent in the present petition stating that they do not seek any reliefs against respondent No.3 or against the interest of respondent No.3, however, they have not produced anything to show that in fact they are the only representatives of said respondent No.3-Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel except the bare words that too in the office note submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners. 9. 9. Along with the further affidavit-in-reply dated 5.10.2013 on behalf of respondent No.1, Annexures R/1 to R/6 were produced by respondent No.1 out of which, Annexures R/1 and R/2 on pages 80 and 81 are copy of Entry No.4155 dated 10-2-1990 related to suit property i.e. Block No.380, Survey No.434/1. It appears from the same that said Block was running in the name of Shri Revashankar Khushalbhai and Smt.Lakhiben Nathubhai, widow of Kalyanbhai, out of which, Lakhiben, widow of Kalyanbhai of Village Pal, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, had expired. She had executed a Will on 7-2-1984 as per which, names of Revashankar Khushalbhai and Lakhiben Nathubhai, widow of Kalyanbhai were deleted and names of Vinaben Lavjibhai and Lataben Vasrambhai, who are petitioners herein, were added. It is further mentioned therein that the said deletion was made on the basis of application submitted by the party, the death certificate produced on record as well as the statements recorded of the party and on the basis of panch-kyas and pedhinama, names were entered. 10. Referring to the relevant documents which have been forthcoming on the record at pages 100, 102 and other documents, it appears that in the year 1994 also, certain notices and correspondences forwarded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein through RPAD appear to have been served to said respondent No.3-Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel to whom the petitioners have deleted by submitting the office note. According to learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, this conduct of the petitioners appears somewhat fishy more particularly when inspite of the fact that Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel is the co-owner of the land in question as mentioned in entry No.4155 referred above on the basis of the will, the petitioners herein have transferred the entire suit land in their name. If page No.82 is perused, it would appear that on 23-10-1989, Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel had filed Namuna No.1 Patrak under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act and the same was decided and order dated 19-12-1989 was passed in favour of said Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel, who was joined as respondent No.3 herein, as referred above. If that is so, then what prompted said Revashankarbhai to leave his half of the share in the land in question as appeared from entry No.4155 which was certified on 24-4-1990 in favour of present petitioners is not known. If that is so, then what prompted said Revashankarbhai to leave his half of the share in the land in question as appeared from entry No.4155 which was certified on 24-4-1990 in favour of present petitioners is not known. In fact, no supporting evidence is forthcoming on record relating to said entry No.4155 shown at page 81. It is the fact that till 1994, the correspondences at pages 100 and 102 and other documents forwarded through RPAD to said Revashankarbhai Khushalbhai Patel presumably served on him. Under the circumstances, there appears substance and merit in the above submission made by learned AGP and it appears that the petitioners herein have not come with clean hands. 11. As referred hereinabove, entry No.4155 dated 10.2.1990 related to suit property was as such certified on 24.4.1990. Thus, it is clear that when the petitioners Smt.Vinaben Lavjibhai and Smt.Lataben Vashrambhai have filled form No.1 under the provisions of Section 6(1) of ULC Act on 10.4.1990 allegedly declaring that they held land admeasuring 4047 sq.mtrs. of Survey No.434/1, block No.380 Village Pal, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, as such, pencil entry was not certified and thus, there appears some unnecessary haste on the part of the petitioners Smt.Vinaben Lavjibhai and Smt.Lataben Vashrambhai for the reasons best known to them. 12. From the above background, prima facie it appears that the petitioners were aware of the fact that Smt.Lakhiben Nathubhai and Shri Revashankar Khushalbhai were the co-owners of property bearing Survey No.434/1 of Block No.380 admeasuring 4047 sq.mtrs. of Village Pal, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, and as such, Smt.Lakhiben was entitled to only half of the share of 4047 sq.mtrs. of Survey No.434/1, however, due to wrong submission of information in Form No.6(1) on 10-2-1990 by the petitioners, total holding has been shown as 4047 sq.mtrs. and thereby competent authority was misled. It is also important to note that on the basis of information submitted by the petitioners, the competent authority has passed an order dated 13/14-6-1990 whereby it has been held that the petitioners were not holding any excess land. 13. If the evidence as a whole is perused, it would appear that prior to passing of the order dated 13/14-6-1990 by the competent authority with respect to the case of the petitioners, the competent authority had already declared 2023.50 sq.mtrs. 13. If the evidence as a whole is perused, it would appear that prior to passing of the order dated 13/14-6-1990 by the competent authority with respect to the case of the petitioners, the competent authority had already declared 2023.50 sq.mtrs. out of Survey No.434/1 of Block No.380 belonging to respondent No.3 Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel herein as excess vacant land vide order dated 31-12-1989. Thereafter, notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act were issued. Even notice under Section 10(5) was issued which was duly served. Thereafter, upon intimation about forceful possession under Sec.10(6) of the Act was given to Shri Revashankar by the competent authority and after following all the prescribed procedures, physical possession of the excess vacant land was taken by the Government after drawing relevant panchnama in presence of panchas. If at all there existed a grievance at the relevant point of time, then it is Shri Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel, who would have raised the same and as stated hereinabove, Shri Revashankar Khushalbhai Patel was deleted by the petitioners. Therefore, in any circumstances of the matter, Power of Attorney Holder, Dayabhai Keshavbhai Patel of Smt. Vinaben Lavjibhai and Smt.Lataben Vasrambhai, who has presumably purchased the lands from Smt. Vinaben and Smt.Lataben, has no authority to challenge the same after approximately 10 years. Since it appears that the said order has been passed by the competent authority upon considering of all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that said order being just, legal and proper does not require any interference by this Court in this petition. 14. As far as the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that facts of those decisions are different from facts on hand and hence, petitioners would not get any benefit out of the decisions relied on by their advocate. 15. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and it is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. FURTHER ORDER Learned advocate, Mr. Deep Vyas for Mr. D.D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has requested for extension of status quo granted earlier in order to approach the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances, status quo granted earlier with regard to the land in question is extended for a period of two weeks.