JUDGMENT : B.M. Trivedi, J. 1. The present petition was originally filed by the four petitioners, challenging the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal on 25.11.1985 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. 69/1985 and the order passed by the respondent No. 1 competent authority on 30.12.1982 (Annexure-B), and also challenging the Notifications published by the respondent authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. It appears that the petition was earlier disposed of by the Single Bench vide the order dated 16.6.2000 on the ground that the petition had stood abated in view of the provisions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act"). The said order was challenged by the State Authorities by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002. The said LPA was allowed by the Division Bench vide the order dated 9.5.2002, setting aside the order passed by the Single Bench. It appears that thereafter the petitioners through their power-of-attorney holder Shri Ananisharan Bhrahmbhatt had filed the Misc. Civil Application (Restoration) No. 50/2013 in LPA No. 81/2002 after about nine years of the said order dated 9.5.2002, praying for recalling of the said order dated 9.5.2002 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 81/2002 on the ground that one of the petitioners i.e. Ravjibhai Chhotabhai Patel had expired on 16.7.2001, during the pendency of the LPA. The subsequent Division Bench vide the separate orders dated 9.1.2013 condoned the delay and allowed the said MCA. The operative part of the order reads as under:-- "4....Without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter the application deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. Judgment and order dated 09.05.2002 is hereby recalled and the Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002 is allowed to the extent that the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 2206 of 1986 dated 16.06.2000 stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge, who is requested to decide the matter on merits after giving full opportunity to both the sides." 3. In view of the said order, the petition has been again heard and is being decided accordingly. 4. In view of the said order, the petition has been again heard and is being decided accordingly. 4. As per the case of the petitioners, one Smt. Javerbai, wife of Somabhai Mohanbhai was the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 660/2 and land bearing Survey No. 662 of village Kapurai, District Baroda. The said Javerbai had executed a "Will" on 30.5.1974 bequeathing the said lands to the petitioners. She died on 11.7.1974. Thereafter the said Act having come into force, all the petitioners had filled in the Form No. 1 declaring the said lands as their holdings under Section 6 of the said Act. The competent authority under the said Act had processed the Form, and declared vide the order dated 30.12.1982 (Annexure-B) that the petitioners as body of individuals held the land admeasuring 101 sq. mtr., of Survey No. 660/2 and land admeasuring 3154 sq. mtr., of Survey No. 662 as the excess vacant land. The said order of the competent authority came to be challenged by the petitioners on 1.4.1985 i.e. after a lapse of about two years and three months by filing the Appeal being No. 69/1985 before the Urban Land Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts that the possession of the land in dispute was already taken over on 19.9.1985 and that the land had already vested in the Government, did not condone the delay occurred in filing the said appeal, and vide the order dated 25.9.1985 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the present petition. 5. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Patel for the petitioners that despite the observations made by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002, the petitioners were entitled to raise all the issues on merits, the said order having been recalled by the subsequent Division Bench in the MCA for restoration. According to Mr. Patel, the Tribunal had committed an error in not condoning the delay on the ground that the land had already vested in the Government and the possession was taken over by the State authorities, though the petitioners had continued to remain in possession on the date of passing of the impugned order. According to Mr. Patel, the Tribunal had committed an error in not condoning the delay on the ground that the land had already vested in the Government and the possession was taken over by the State authorities, though the petitioners had continued to remain in possession on the date of passing of the impugned order. Relying upon the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners on 3.9.2015, he submitted that though the petitioners were earlier served with the notices under Section 10(5) of the said Act for taking over the possession of the lands in question, all the petitioners were not served with the last notice dated 31.8.1985 issued under Section 10(5) of the said Act, pursuant to which the possession was taken over on 19.9.1995. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 , the learned Counsel Mr. Patel submitted that the deemed vesting of title to the surplus land in the State Government under Section 10(3) of the said Act, or issuance of Notice under Section 10(5) of the said Act did not amount to taking over of de facto or factual possession of the surplus land by the State Government. According to him, despite the Repeal Act, the action taken or order passed by the respondent authorities under the said Act or under the Repeal Act was amenable to the judicial scrutiny, in view of the decision of this Court in case of Rameshchandra Ramjibhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2000 (4) GLR 2777 . He further submitted that the petitioners were the co-owners of the lands in question and, therefore, were tenants in common. Placing heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Savitaben etc. v. State of Gujarat etc., reported in 1991 (1) GLH 186 and of Supreme Court in the case of Chhanganlal Trikamdas Thakkerm & Ors. v. Competent Authority, Rajkot & Ors., reported in 1994 (1) GCD 1 (Guj), he submitted that when individuals have definite and specified shares in the land, they cannot be treated as association or body of individuals within the definition of 'person' contained in Section 2(i) of the said Act. v. Competent Authority, Rajkot & Ors., reported in 1994 (1) GCD 1 (Guj), he submitted that when individuals have definite and specified shares in the land, they cannot be treated as association or body of individuals within the definition of 'person' contained in Section 2(i) of the said Act. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. B.E. Billimoria, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4368 , he submitted that the ULC Act being expropriatory legislation, the provisions of the said Act should be construed strictly. 6. However, the learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel for the respondent authorities placing heavy reliance on the observations made by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002 submitted that the petitioners had not only suppressed the material facts with regard to the receipt of notices under Section 10(5) of the said Act but also with regard to taking over the possession of the land by the respondents, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that while recalling the said order passed in LPA, the subsequent Division Bench had not set aside the said observations made by the earlier Division Bench, and that the petitioners had tried to change their versions by filing additional affidavit-in-rejoinder only to suit their own purposes. 7. At the outset, it is significant to note that after about nine years of the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 81 of 2002, the MCA for recalling of the said order was filed by one Shri Ananisharan Bhrahmbhatt as the power-of-attorney holder of the petitioners, including the legal heirs of the original petitioner No. 1 Ravjibhai, without seeking any permission from the Division Bench for bringing them on record of the Letters Patent Appeal. That apart, when the said power-of-attorney holder was not on record either of the Special Civil Application at the time of its disposal or of the Letters Patent Appeal, the MCA at the instance of such power-of-attorney holder as such was not maintainable. From the copy of power-of-attorney produced in the MCA, it appears that it was executed in the year 2010 i.e., much after the order dated 9.5.2002 passed in the LPA No. 81 of 2002. From the copy of power-of-attorney produced in the MCA, it appears that it was executed in the year 2010 i.e., much after the order dated 9.5.2002 passed in the LPA No. 81 of 2002. Be that as it may, since the said MCA was allowed by the Court, this Court cannot go into the legality of the said proceedings, except to observe that the procedure adopted by the petitioners through the said power-of-attorney holder was not proper and not in accordance with law. The said power-of-attorney holder, after the revival of the petition had filed one affidavit on 18.6.2015 and another affidavit-in-rejoinder on 3.9.2015 making statements contrary to the statements made in the original petition filed by the petitioners, as regards the receipt of notices under Section 10(5) of the said Act, which shall be demonstrated hereinafter. 8. At this juncture, it is required to reproduce the observations made by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002 with regard to the conduct of the petitioners. In paragraph 4 thereof it is observed as under:-- "4. Though the appellants at the time of hearing of the petition before the learned Single Judge had not filed counter affidavit placing all the material relating to this case in the Court, with the permission of the Court, they have now filed additional affidavit in reply dated 28th February, 2002 of Mr. V.C. Varma, Addl. Collector, Coordination, Vadodara. Alongwith the affidavit, the appellants have also placed on record relevant documents including all the postal acknowledgement receipts in support of their contentions. The respondents have not chosen to file affidavit-in-rejoinder to this affidavit. Perusal of the record shows that after the respondents filed form No. 1 along with the affidavit under section 6 of the Act, the Competent Authority prepared draft statement which was duly served on the respondents, to which they filed objections and after hearing the parties the Competent Authority on 30th December, 1982 declared 3255 sq. mtrs. of land as excess land. Thereafter, the notification under section 10(3) relating to land in question came to be published in the Government Gazette on 11th August, 1983. It is well settled law by now that upon publication of notification under section 10(3) of the Act the land stands vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. mtrs. of land as excess land. Thereafter, the notification under section 10(3) relating to land in question came to be published in the Government Gazette on 11th August, 1983. It is well settled law by now that upon publication of notification under section 10(3) of the Act the land stands vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In this case also, upon publication of notification under section 10(3) of the Act, the land in question came to be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and the respondents have ceased to have any right, title or interest in the said land. The record further shows that things have even travelled further than the stage of section 10(3) of the Act. In accordance with the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act, before taking physical possession of the land respondents were served with notices on three occasions, namely, on 29th January, 1985, 1st April, 1985 and 31st July, 1985 and all these notices were duly received by the respondents as per the copies of the acknowledgement receipts placed on record by the appellants. The respondents also do not dispute this fact. However, the respondents on all the three occasions did not remain present to hand over possession and ultimately on 19th September, 1985 the authorized officer, namely, the Maintenance Surveyor of Unit No. 4 took physical possession of the land in presence of two independent persons acting as panchas. While taking the possession necessary panchnama was also drawn which has been placed on record alongwith the affidavit of Mr. Varma. There is absolutely no reason to doubt these documents. The panchnama clearly shows that on 19th September, 1985 the respondents had not remained present. However, the physical possession of the land was taken by the authorized officer in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Act, as the respondents did not deliver the possession after issuance of notice under section 10(5) of the Act. When the possession of the land is taken over by the State Government, nothing more is required to be done except determination of the amount to be paid to the land holders in accordance with provisions of section 11 of the Act. When the possession of the land is taken over by the State Government, nothing more is required to be done except determination of the amount to be paid to the land holders in accordance with provisions of section 11 of the Act. Thus, considering the fact that possession of the land was already taken over by the Government way back on 19th September, 1985, the whole matter is now pending only at the stage of section 11 of the Act.... From the record of Special Civil Application No. 2206 of 1986 it appears that the respondents had been served with intimation calling upon them to remain present before the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Unit No. 4, Vadodara, alongwith all the necessary evidence on 23rd April, 1986 at 1.00 p.m. for determination of amount to be paid to them under section 11 of the Act for acquiring their excess land. It appears that respondents having received that notice had approached this Court by filing aforesaid petition, by suppressing material fact regarding Government having taken over the possession of the vacant land from the respondents. We have been informed at the bar that the respondents have till date not accepted the amount. The fact remains that the whole matter now rests at the stage of section 11 of the Act only...." 9. Though it is true that the said order was recalled by the subsequent Division Bench in MCA No. 50/2013 vide the order dated 9.1.2013 on the ground that one of the petitioners had expired when the said order was passed, nonetheless, the learned Counsel Mr. Patel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the afore-stated specific findings recorded by the Division Bench in the LPA. The MCA for recalling of the said order was filed by the Power-of-attorney holder on behalf of the petitioners, and that too, after nine years of the passing of the said order. The cause-title of the Special Civil Application was also amended incorporating the name of the Power-of-attorney without the permission of the Court. It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Court in Civil Application No. 7740 of 2013, the Court had permitted to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner No. 1. It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Court in Civil Application No. 7740 of 2013, the Court had permitted to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner No. 1. There is no order passed by the Court permitting the Power-of-attorney holder to prosecute the petition for and on behalf of the petitioners. The Court takes serious note of such amendment carried out in the cause-title of the petition without the permission of the Court. 10. That part, it appears that in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the LPA with regard to the suppression of material facts in respect of service of notices under Section 10(5) and in respect of the possession of the land in question, the said power-of-attorney holder filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder admitting receipt of the notices dated 1.4.1995 and 23.5.1995 by the petitioners, which facts were otherwise suppressed by the petitioners in the petition. It has been specifically admitted in paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the power-of-attorney holder that the petitioners had received the notice dated 1.4.1985 issued under Section 10(5) of the said Act, however, the possession was not taken over on 18.4.1985 as indicated in the said notice. It is also admitted that another notice dated 23.5.1985 was also served to the petitioners, informing that the possession of the land would be taken over on 11.6.1985, however, the possession was not taken over on that day. According to Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the third notice dated 31.8.1985, directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the land in question on 19.9.1985, was not served to all the petitioners and the said notice being crucial, the possession allegedly taken over pursuant to the said notice by drawing panchnama on 19.9.1985 was not legal. The said submission of Mr. Patel is also contrary to the averments made in the petition filed in 1986. In the petition it is specifically stated that the respondent No. 1 had issued the notice dated 31.8.1985 to the petitioners for handing over possession of the land. The petitioners also produced copy thereof as Annexure-D. Thus, it clearly emerges that the petitioners have tried to change their version from time to time to suit their own purposes. 11. In the petition it is specifically stated that the respondent No. 1 had issued the notice dated 31.8.1985 to the petitioners for handing over possession of the land. The petitioners also produced copy thereof as Annexure-D. Thus, it clearly emerges that the petitioners have tried to change their version from time to time to suit their own purposes. 11. The petitioners had suppressed the material facts with regard to the receipt of notices under Section 10(5) of the said Act, as also with regard to the possession having been taken over by the State authorities on 19.9.1985 by drawing the panchnama, and therefore, it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to say that they were unaware about the said proceedings or that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the respondent No. 1 were bad or illegal. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 30.12.1982 was passed by the competent authority after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the said order remained unchallenged at the instance of the petitioners for about more than two years, till they filed the Appeal before the Tribunal on 1.4.1985. In the meantime, the Notification under Section 10(3) of the said Act was issued, and the land had vested in the State Government. Thereafter, the notices under Section 10(5) of the said Act were also issued and the petitioners having not responded to the said notices, the possession was taken over on 19.9.1985 by drawing the panchnama. 12. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that the act of taking over the possession by drawing panchnama has been approved by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 212 , held as under:-- "It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession." 13. In the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society versus Govt. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession." 13. In the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society versus Govt. of NCT, Delhi reported in (2009) 10 SCC 501 , and in case of Omprakash Verma versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 13 SCC 158 , it has been held that when the possession is taken over a large tract of land, then it is permissible to take possession by properly executing the panchnama. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Brij Pal Bhargava versus State of UP reported in 2011 (2) SCALE 692 , and in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda versus Moti Lal Agarwal and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 . 14. In the instant case, the Tribunal after considering the facts about the vesting of lands in question in Government and about the possession having taken over by the Government, had rightly not entertained the Appeal, by not condoning the delay. The Court, therefore, does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. On the contrary, in view of the afore-stated facts and circumstances, the Court has found that the petitioners had suppressed the material facts in the petition with a view to obtain ex parte order at the time of admission hearing of the petition. After the remand of the matter, the petitioners had tried to state the version contrary to the version stated in the original petition, by filing the affidavit-in-rejoinder through the so-called Power-of-attorney holder. It is well settled proposition of law that where the petitioners make false statements and conceal material facts and mislead the Court, their petition is liable to be dismissed even without considering the merits. 15. There cannot be any disagreement with the ratio of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Utter Pradesh v. Hari Ram (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. Patel, however, the same has no application to the facts of this case. 15. There cannot be any disagreement with the ratio of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Utter Pradesh v. Hari Ram (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. Patel, however, the same has no application to the facts of this case. The lands in question having already vested in the Government and the actual physical possession having already been taken over by the respondents after following the due procedure, prior to filing of the petition, and the petitioners having not stated true and correct facts in the petition, they could not be granted any relief as prayed for. Whether the petitioners were joint tenants or tenants in common or not, or whether they were entitled to separate units or not, are the disputed questions of facts, which could not be decided at this juncture in the present petition, when the order of competent authority was not challenged by the petitioners for more than two years, and when the lands had already vested in the Government and possession thereof was taken over by the Government after following due process of law, prior to the passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal. 16. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any merit in the present petition, on the contrary, finds that the petitioners had not stated the true and correct facts in the petition and had suppressed the material facts, and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners in this Court within three weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. If the petitioners fail to deposit the said amount of cost, the respondents shall be at liberty to recover the same by way of arrears of land revenue. 17. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.