JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs:-- "13. The petitioners, therefore, pray: "A) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to implement and enforce the judgment Ann.B delivered by the Urban Land Tribunal and final statement Ann.BB issued by the Competent Authority on or about 19/20-3-93 and be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to quash, set aside and/or modify the order Ann.CC dated 14.8.88 passed by the Government of Gujarat so as to make in consistent with the final statement Ann.BB and be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents to restore the original position of possession of the lands in question by restoring the possession to the petitioners as per the final statement Ann.BB issued by the Competent Authority; 13AA. That Your Lordships by pleased to hold that the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 applies to the excess vacant land admeasuring 43,570 sq. mtrs. declared by the judgment Annexure -B delivered by Urban Land Tribunal and be pleased to restore this land to the petitioners and further be pleased to hold that the petitioners are the owners and occupiers of the entire land bearing survey Nos. 90, 91 & 92 of Sayajigunj, Dist. Vadodara and the respondents have no right, title or interest over the disputed land including the land admeasuring 43,570 sq.mts. being excess vacant land declared by the Urban Land Tribunal." 2. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioners herein, four in number, filed individual forms under section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "ULC Act") before the Competent Authority & Deputy Collector, ULC, Vadodara. The competent authority processed the declaration forms and by a consolidated order dated 12.01.1984 passed under sub-section (4) of section 8 of the ULC Act, declared 79741 sq. mts. of land to be excess vacant. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority, further steps came to be taken including issuance of notification under sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 10 of the ULC Act. mts. of land to be excess vacant. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority, further steps came to be taken including issuance of notification under sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 10 of the ULC Act. Thereafter, notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued and according to the respondents, possession of the land declared excess vacant by the competent authority came to be taken over on 05.03.1986. Subsequently, by an order dated 14.08.1988 passed under section 23 of the ULC Act, 79741 sq. mts. of land came to be allotted to the Vadodara Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the VUDA") and mutation proceedings came to the undertaken and the controversy reached the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 9041 of 1994. 4. In the meanwhile, against the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority, the petitioners, in the year 1989, went in appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). By an order dated May 1992, the appeal came to be partly allowed whereby the land declared excess vacant by the competent authority, came to be reduced from 79741 sq. mts. to 43570 sq. mts. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, final statement under section 9 of the ULC Act came to be issued and notification under Sub-section (1) of section 10 thereof also came to be issued, however, no steps were taken thereafter and hence, the petitioners approached this court by way of the present writ petition seeking the reliefs prayed for vide paragraph 13A of the petition. During the pendency of the petition, the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation (Repeal) Act, 1999 came into force whereby the ULC Act came to be repealed. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an amendment and sought further relief as prayed for vide paragraph 13AA of the petition. 5. Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the competent authority issued a final statement dated 19.03.1993 and thereafter issued notification under Sub-section (1) of section 10 of the ULC Act on 20.3.1993. However, thereafter, no further steps have been undertaken under the provisions of the ULC Act and hence, the actual physical possession of the land declared excess vacant has remained with the petitioners. However, thereafter, no further steps have been undertaken under the provisions of the ULC Act and hence, the actual physical possession of the land declared excess vacant has remained with the petitioners. It was submitted that all proceedings taken pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority under section 8(4) of the ULC Act would no longer survive as the order passed by the competent authority has been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. The attention of the court was invited to the fact that during the pendency of the petition, on 30.03.1999, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act") was brought into force and that by virtue of the provisions of section 2 thereof, the ULC Act, 1976, came to be repealed. It was submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the proceedings under the ULC Act have not gone beyond the stage of issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 thereof and hence, possession of the lands declared excess vacant has not been taken over in accordance with the provisions of the ULC Act, and in the meanwhile the ULC Act has been repealed and hence, in view of the provisions of section 4 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings under the ULC Act stand abated and the petitioners are entitled to claim the entire land, including the land declared excess vacant by the Tribunal. It was pointed out that on 07.04.1999, the Government of Gujarat had directed the competent authority to furnish complete details of the land declared excess vacant of which possession was taken over before 30.03.1999, in compliance whereof, the competent authority has prepared a detailed statement in which the lands involved in the present case are not included. The attention of the court was invited to the communication dated 19.03.1993 (Annexure BB to the petition) of the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Unit-2 Vadodara addressed to the petitioners wherein it has been stated thus:-- "In the context of the above subject you are informed that you had submitted declaration in the prescribed form under section 6(1) of the ULC Act in respect of the lands held by you and accordingly a draft statement of the lands retainable by you and the lands which are to be handed over to the Government is being served. On the basis thereof objections were received from you in connection with such objections your advocate had been personally heard and a copy of the order has been enclosed along with the final statement that has been prepared of the lands which are to be retained by you and the lands which are to be handed over to the Government and is sent herewith, which may be taken note of. The excess vacant land as shown in the said final statement shall be acquired as and when the Government requires the same and till then the holder can continue with the possession thereof." 5.1 It was submitted that, therefore, it is manifest that possession of the excess vacant land in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, has not been taken over by the respondents. It was submitted that at the relevant time, since no further proceedings were being undertaken under the ULC Act, the present petition came to be filed. However, having regard to the fact that during the pendency of the petition, the Urban Land Ceiling Act has been repealed and in view of the Repeal Act, in those cases where possession of the excess vacant land has not been taken over by or on behalf of the Government, the proceedings would stand abated, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration as prayed for vide paragraph 13AA of the petition. 5.2 Next, it was submitted that even pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the Competent Authority, actual physical possession of the excess vacant land was not taken over from the petitioners and only paper possession had been taken, thus even at that point of time, possession was not taken over in accordance with law. It was pointed out that notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued on 30.05.1985 to hand over possession on 14.06.1985. Thereafter, another notice dated 28.02.1986 came to be issued under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the excess vacant land on 20.03.1986. However, according to the respondents, possession was taken over on 05.03.1986. Thereafter, another notice dated 28.02.1986 came to be issued under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the excess vacant land on 20.03.1986. However, according to the respondents, possession was taken over on 05.03.1986. Referring to the possession receipt dated 05.03.1986 [Annexure-IB to the additional affidavit dated 05.10.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioners], it was pointed out that the same is signed by two persons, namely, Gordhanbhai Motibhai Patel and Kiritbhai C. Patel on behalf of Chhaganbhai Chhotabhai Patel. It was submitted that thus, only one of the petitioners has signed the possession receipt whereas two of the petitioners have not at all signed the possession receipt and on behalf of Chhaganbhai Chhotabhai Patel, his son has signed the possession receipt. Thus, the possession, which has been taken over behind the back of the petitioners, cannot be said to be voluntary possession, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondents. 5.3 Reliance was placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Laxmanbhai K. Chokshi v. Competent Authority and Additional Collector, (U.L.C), 2007 (3) GLR 2231 , wherein the court has held that sub-section (5) of section 10 of the Act enjoins the competent authority, by notice in writing, to order any person who may be in possession of the vacant land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government. Thus, the person who is in possession of the land is entitled to a notice in writing. The court observed that in that case, admittedly the notice, as envisaged under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act, was given to the holder of the land alone and not to the persons in possession. The court held that the action of the State Government in taking over possession of the said excess vacant land, unilaterally contrary to sub-section (5) of section 10 of the Act was illegal and was, accordingly, of the opinion that the State Government cannot be said to have legally taken over possession of the excess vacant land. The court held that the action of the State Government in taking over possession of the said excess vacant land, unilaterally contrary to sub-section (5) of section 10 of the Act was illegal and was, accordingly, of the opinion that the State Government cannot be said to have legally taken over possession of the excess vacant land. The court, accordingly, held that the possession of the excess vacant land thus continued with the petitioner and the Repeal Act having been made effective in the State of Gujarat on 30.03.1999, in view of section 4 thereof the proceeding in respect of the said excess vacant land shall stand abated. It was submitted that the above decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case wherein the possession has not been taken over in the presence of the holders of the land declared excess vacant. It was, accordingly, urged that all the orders and proceedings undertaken pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority do not survive as they have been impliedly set aside by the order of the Tribunal. 5.4 It was submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal has been accepted by the respondents as the same has not been challenged before the higher forum and fresh final statement has been issued pursuant thereto and the proceedings beyond sub-section (1) of section 10 have not taken place. It was, accordingly, urged that since even 43570 sq. mts. of land forming part of survey No. 90, 91 and 92 of Sayajigunj has not been demarcated and possession thereof has not been taken over, the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act abate, and the petitioners are entitled to retain all the lands as originally held by them. 5.5 It was submitted that in view of the fact that the order passed by the competent authority has been set aside by the Tribunal, the allotment of such excess vacant land by the Government to VUDA also does not remain and is deemed to have been set aside. It was, accordingly, submitted that the respondents cannot claim right, title or interest on any part of the land bearing survey No. 90, 91 and 92 and that the petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the petition. It was, accordingly, submitted that the respondents cannot claim right, title or interest on any part of the land bearing survey No. 90, 91 and 92 and that the petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the petition. 5.6 In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon various decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court, reference to which shall be made at an appropriate stage. 6. Vehemently opposing the petition, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority under sub-section (4) of section 8 of the ULC Act, all further proceedings, including issuance of final statement, notification under sub-section (1) of section 10, under sub-section (3) of section 10 and notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 came to be concluded and that even the order under section 11 of the ULC Act determining the amount payable to the petitioners had been passed and possession of the land declared excess vacant came to be voluntarily handed over by the petitioners on 05.03.1986. It was submitted that thereafter the excess vacant land came to be allotted in favour of VUDA and possession thereof was handed over to it. It was submitted that at a belated stage, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which modified the order passed by the competent authority by declaring land admeasuring 43570 sq. mts. out of the total holding of the petitioners to be excess vacant. It was pointed out that the provisions under sections 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act and allotment thereof to VUDA, however, were not subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. It was submitted that after issuance of the final statement under section 9 of the Act and publication of notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act, the petitioners had approached this court by way of the present petition and in the meanwhile, during the pendency of the petition, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed by the Repeal Act. 6.1 It was submitted that for the purposes of the Repeal Act, the only aspect to be considered is that section 3 thereof, saves all land vested under section 10(3) of the ULC Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. 6.1 It was submitted that for the purposes of the Repeal Act, the only aspect to be considered is that section 3 thereof, saves all land vested under section 10(3) of the ULC Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. It was emphatically argued that in the facts of the present case admittedly possession of the land declared excess vacant under the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority had been handed over voluntarily by the land owners on 05.03.1986 and no dispute had been raised at any stage in this regard before the Tribunal or till the repeal of the ULC Act. It was submitted that the order under section 11 of the ULC Act also came to be passed and in the said proceedings also, the petitioners had duly participated and pursuant to the same, lands declared excess vacant were duly allotted to VUDA and thereafter on 23.06.1993 the possession was taken over by VUDA and entries came to be made in the revenue record in that regard. 6.2 In the written submissions submitted on behalf of the State authorities, it has been submitted that prior to approaching the Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 19 of 1989 under section 33 of the ULC Act, right from the stage of declaration under section 8(4) declaring 79,741 sq. mts. of land as excess vacant out of 81,241 sq. mts of land, undisputedly all proceedings under the ULC Act have attained finality till the stage of passing order under section 11 thereof. Possession of the land declared excess vacant as taken over on 05.03.1986 wherein one Shri Gordhanbhai M. Patel and one Shri Kiritbhai Chhaganbhai Patel have voluntarily surrendered possession. It has been further submitted that what was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal was final determination under section 9 of the ULC Act and not the proceedings taken under sections 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) and 11(2) of the ULC Act. When the petitioners participated after noting the factum of possession being taken by examining the map produced on record, the Tribunal noted that the canal land be excluded and the petitioners be granted four units unless there is a change in demarcation of the challenge. When the petitioners participated after noting the factum of possession being taken by examining the map produced on record, the Tribunal noted that the canal land be excluded and the petitioners be granted four units unless there is a change in demarcation of the challenge. 6.3 The learned Government Pleader submitted that this petition has been filed seeking implementation of the order of the Tribunal and that the order passed by the Tribunal is not the subject matter of challenge. Referring to the reliefs prayed for in the petition, it was pointed out that the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed that the respondents be directed to restore the original possession of the land in question by restoring the possession to the petitioners as per final statement Annexure-BB issued by the competent authority. It was submitted that it is, therefore, clear that possession was never restored to the petitioners before coming into force of the Repeal Act and that the admission on the part of the petitioners clearly supports the stand of the State authorities that the possession was duly taken. Moreover, it is also a fact on record that the subject land was allotted to VUDA and that these facts were never under challenge and remain undisputed. Therefore, in view of the provisions of section 3 of the Repeal Act, the action taken by the State Government, including, taking over possession of the land declared excess vacant, is saved. 6.4 It was further submitted that earlier, at no point of time have the petitioners contended that the possession of the land in question had not been taken over and that it is only after the repeal of the ULC Act, that the petitioners have now come forward with a case that possession of the land was not taken over in accordance with law. 6.5 Strong reliance was placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Keshavlal Dungarshi Mavani v. State of Gujarat rendered on 22.12.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 917 of 2000, wherein the court had upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants therein would be entitled to restoration of the land to the extent held by the Competent Authority to be excluded from the holding of the appellants therein and would be required to restore possession thereof from any of the land declared excess vacant. The court, however, turned down the plea of the appellants that in view of the fact that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal fresh proceedings for taking over possession had not been taken over prior to the coming into force of Repeal Act, the appellants therein would be entitled to restoration of the entire excess vacant land. It was submitted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 6.6 As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that actual physical possession was not taken over at the relevant time, the learned Government Pleader placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others, (2015) 5 SCC 321 , wherein the court held that assuming that any determination on the question of fact regarding possession having been taken over or not, is possible even in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the failure of the Government or the authorised officer or the competent authority to issue a notice to the landowners in terms of section 10(5) would by itself not mean that such dispossession was no possession in the eye of law and hence, insufficient to attract section 3 of the Repeal Act. 6.7 Reliance was also placed upon certain other decisions, reference to which shall be made at an appropriate stage. 7. In rejoinder, Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal's judgment is not to be read only in the operative part. Referring to the order passed by the Tribunal, it was pointed out that the Tribunal, in the body of the order, has specifically held that the order passed by the competent authority, and all proceedings pursuant thereto, are nullity. It was submitted that, therefore, it is evident that by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal, not only the order passed by the competent authority, but all proceedings pursuant thereto have been held to be a nullity and hence, no reliance can be placed upon such proceedings by the respondents. It was contended that the order passed by the Tribunal has been accepted by the respondents and hence, is binding upon them. It was contended that the order passed by the Tribunal has been accepted by the respondents and hence, is binding upon them. The attention of the court was also invited to the affidavit-in-reply dated 26.12.2002 filed by the Competent Authority and the Additional Collector, Vadodara, wherein at page 4 of the said affidavit, the Competent Authority has stated thus: "I say and submit that complying with the orders dated 12.5.1992 passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, the orders of allotment of land to the Vadodara Urban Development Authority automatically stands cancelled." 7.1 It was submitted that, therefore, the respondents have understood the order passed by the Tribunal in proper perspective, however, before this court, it is contended that the possession taken pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by competent authority would enure. 7.A As recorded in the order dated 15.1.2016, this matter was heard from time to time. However, no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 Vadodara Urban Development Authority. 8. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has minutely gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 9. The undisputed facts of the case are that the original petitioners filed individual declarations in Form 1 under section 6 of the ULC Act showing joint holding of in all 81,241 sq. mts of Sayajipura, District Vadodara. The Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Vadodara by a consolidated order dated 12.1.1984 passed under section 8(4) of the ULC Act allowed one unit of 1500 sq. mts between all four declarants and declared 79741 sq. mts of land as excess vacant out of 81,241 sq. mts. Pursuant thereto, final statement under section 9 of the ULC Act came to be issued which was followed by notifications under section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act. According to the respondents, notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued on 30.05.1985 calling upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the excess vacant land on 14.06.1985. According to the respondents, notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued on 30.05.1985 calling upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the excess vacant land on 14.06.1985. Thereafter another notice under section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 28.02.1986 to hand over the possession on 20.03.1986 [though the ULC Act does not contemplate a second notice under section 10(5) thereof, no explanation has come forth as to why such course of action was adopted and as to why after expiry of the period mentioned in the notice steps were not taken for taking over possession under sub-section (6) of section 10 the ULC Act]. It is the case of the respondents that before 20.03.1986, the petitioners voluntarily handed over the possession on 05.03.1986, which fact is strongly disputed by the petitioners, who have pointed out that the possession receipt (kabja pavti) shows that only two persons have signed thereon, viz. Gordhanbhai Motibhai and Kiritbhai C Patel, son of Chhaganbhai Chhotabhai Patel, to submit that only one of the petitioners has signed the possession receipt and that the other three petitioners have not signed the same. It has been contended that since the land was jointly held by all the four petitioners, the taking over of possession unilaterally from one of the joint owners cannot be said to be possession voluntarily handed over by all the four petitioners. At this stage it is not necessary to dilate any further on the issue. Suffice it to say that after purportedly having taken over the possession of the excess vacant land, the amount to be paid to the petitioners came to be determined under section 11 of the Act. It appears that thereafter the excess vacant land came to be allotted to the Vadodara Urban Development Authority by an order dated 14.08.1988 under section 23 of the Act. It is further the case of the respondents that possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to VUDA on 23.06.1990 and entry No. 1847 came to be posted in the revenue record entering the name of VUDA in the record of rights. 10. In the meanwhile, sometime in the year 1989, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the Competent Authority. 10. In the meanwhile, sometime in the year 1989, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the Competent Authority. By an order dated 12.05.1992, the appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the competent authority and holding that the petitioners are entitled to in all four units, that is, 1500 x 4 = 6000 sq. mts. The Tribunal also held that the land forming part of the canal and agricultural land, in all admeasuring 31671 sq. mts, was required to be excluded from the total holding and declared 43570 sq. mts. to be excess vacant land and directed the competent authority to issue fresh final statement under section 9 of the ULC Act. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the competent authority issued final statement under section 9 of the ULC Act and took further steps for vesting the land declared excess vacant under the order of the Tribunal by issuing notification dated 20.03.1993 under section 10(1) of the ULC Act read with rule 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Rules to the effect that such vacant land as described in the schedule below is to be acquired by the Government of Gujarat, etc. Thereafter, since no further steps were taken, the petitioners approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Tribunal. It may be noted that the order passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondents before the higher forum and has attained finality and would, therefore, govern the rights of the parties under the ULC Act. 11. During the pendency of the petition, on 30.03.1999, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 11. During the pendency of the petition, on 30.03.1999, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It being the case of the petitioners that after the order passed by the competent authority under section 8(4) of the ULC Act having been set aside by the Tribunal, all proceedings pursuant thereto would be rendered nugatory and since pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the proceedings had been undertaken only till the stage of section 10(1) of the ULC Act, the land declared excess vacant by the Tribunal has not vested in the State Government and possession thereof has not been taken, the petitioners moved an amendment seeking a declaration that the Repeal Act applies to the excess vacant land admeasuring 43570 sq. mts. and to hold that the petitioners are the owners and occupiers of the entire land bearing survey No. 90, 91 and 92 of Sayajiganj, District Vadodara and that the respondents have no right, title or interest over the disputed land including the land declared excess vacant by the Tribunal, which came to be allowed. 12. Thus, the first question that arises for consideration is as to what is the effect of the order passed by the Tribunal. At this juncture, reference may be made to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.5.1992, which as translated into English read thus: "The competent authority has consolidated different forms and has passed the order dated 12.1.84 under section 8(4) of the Act. Thereafter proceedings under section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) have been carried out and possession of the land has also been taken over and thereafter order for payment of compensation under section 11has also been made. Considering the order dated 12.1.84 there has been a delay of five years. However, at the time of hearing the Tribunal has admitted the appeal as the order has not been served upon all the parties. Thus, in view of the fact that the order has not been served on all the parties the order of the competent authority becomes a nullity and consequently all proceedings taken pursuant thereto are also nullity. However, at the time of hearing the Tribunal has admitted the appeal as the order has not been served upon all the parties. Thus, in view of the fact that the order has not been served on all the parties the order of the competent authority becomes a nullity and consequently all proceedings taken pursuant thereto are also nullity. Upon perusal of the record of the case, in the 7/12 record the names of Chhaganbhai, Ambalal, Gordhanbhai and Bhagwanbhai have been entered vide entry No. 1043 dated 27.4.1975 which means that all four land holders have an equal share in the suit land. Looking to the same they are entitled to four units that is 1500/6000 sq. mts of land. Moreover, on a perusal of the xerox copy of the reply dated 5.10.91 of the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Vadodara, addressed to Shri Bhagwanbhai Chhotabhai which has been produced by the appellant at the time of hearing, land admeasuring 15277 sq. mts of Survey No. 92 of Sayajipura is situated in the agricultural zone as per the ULC map and 11300 sq. mts thereof forms part of the canal, thus 31617 sq. mts. of survey number 92 is required to be excluded. Thus as per the copies of the extract of 7/12 and the letter of the competent authority, the landholders are entitled to retain 4 units, that is 6000 sq. mts and in all 31617 sq. mts of lands which fall in the agricultural zone and canal are required to be excluded. Land admeasuring 15277 of survey No. 92 is excluded as the same formed part of the agricultural zone at the relevant time. However, if the zone is changed than procedure in accordance with law shall be required to be followed. The total holding of the landholders is 81241 sq. mts. out of which 6000 sq. mts. are retainable lands and the land which has gone in the canal and is in the agricultural zone totally admeasuring 37671 sq. mts. is also required to be excluded and the remaining 43570 sq. mts. of land shall be declared excess vacant. The total holding of the landholders is 81241 sq. mts. out of which 6000 sq. mts. are retainable lands and the land which has gone in the canal and is in the agricultural zone totally admeasuring 37671 sq. mts. is also required to be excluded and the remaining 43570 sq. mts. of land shall be declared excess vacant. Item No. Name of the village Survey No. Total area Retainable land Land required to be excluded from the holding Land liable to be declared excess vacant 1 Sayajipura 90 19830 6000 - 13830 2 91 14164 - 14164 3 92 47247 31671 15576 81284 31671 43570 The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the competent authority, Vadodara is hereby set aside and as discussed hereinabove the competent authority is directed to issue an amended final statement as follows: 13. Thus, rightly or wrongly, the Tribunal, at one stage of the order has held that the order passed by the competent authority is nullity and consequently all proceedings taken pursuant thereto are also nullity. The Tribunal, after considering the merits of the case, has allowed the appeal to the aforesaid extent and has set aside the order passed by the competent authority and directed him to issue amended final statement in terms of the said order. Thus, the Tribunal has set aside the earlier order passed by the competent authority and directed him to issue a fresh final statement. 14. As regards what is the effect of the proceedings undertaken pursuant to an order under section 8(4) of the ULC Act when such order is subsequently set aside, it may be germane to refer to certain decisions of this court on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 14.1 In Rajeshkumar Bhikhabhai Patel and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 2001 (3) GLR 2520 , the Tribunal had passed an order on 10.12.1998 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The competent authority, pursuant to the judgment of the Tribunal, did not take any further action. In the meantime, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by the Ordinance of 1999. The court observed that in view of section 4 of the Repeal Act, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance before any court/Tribunal shall abate. In the meantime, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed by the Ordinance of 1999. The court observed that in view of section 4 of the Repeal Act, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance before any court/Tribunal shall abate. The effect of such abatement will be that since the competent authority did not take any action consequent upon the remand order of the Tribunal, all proceedings will abate. The court held that since the judgment of the competent authority was set aside and the matter was remanded, it would be deemed that fresh proceedings should have been taken by the competent authority and even if, possession was taken prior to that by the State government, it is of no consequence. 14.2 In State of Gujarat v. Deceased Bhikhiben wd/o Jagjivanprasad rendered on 18.07.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 5541 of 1998, this court held thus:-- "7. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the earlier order dated 10.10.1986 made by the Competent Authority, possession of the land declared excess vacant under the said order had already been taken over. However, thereafter, the said order of the Competent Authority came to be quashed and set aside by the Tribunal and the matter came to be remanded to the Competent Authority for deciding afresh. Under the circumstances, all steps taken pursuant to the order passed by the Competent Authority would stand nullified. 8. This Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Gordhanbhai Becharbhai Patel and others, 1995 (2) GLH 97 , held that once the order of the Competent Authority is quashed and set aside, all consequential actions, which had been taken in the meantime, have to be reversed and the functionaries under the Act have to abide by the order of the appellate authority. In the facts of the present case, the order made by the Competent Authority stood quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto were required to be reversed and the functionaries under the ULC Act were required to abide by the directions issued by the Tribunal. In the facts of the present case, the order made by the Competent Authority stood quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto were required to be reversed and the functionaries under the ULC Act were required to abide by the directions issued by the Tribunal. In the present case, pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, the Competent Authority has passed an order under section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring lands to the extent of 2128.78 square metres to be excess vacant. However thereafter, the said order could not be acted upon in the light of the interim order passed by this court. Under the circumstances, prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act, possession of the subject land could not be taken over and as such, in view of the operation of section 4 of the Repeal Act, the present proceedings abate." 14.3 In Bhikhiben wd/o Devjibhai Patel (since deceased) v. State of Gujarat through the Principal Secretary rendered on 15.12.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2206 of 2007, a Division Bench of this Court observed that possession was taken pursuant to the order under section 8(4) of the ULC Act and after issuing necessary notice and notification under section 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act. All these proceedings and orders were set aside by the Urban Land Tribunal. Even if the possession was bonafide taken over by the Government, by virtue of quashing the orders under which such possession was taken over, the possession would no longer be legally tenable. 15. Thus, once the order under sub-section (4) of section 8 the ULC Act is set aside, all proceedings taken pursuant thereto, including the taking over of possession of the lands declared excess vacant under such order, would no longer be legally tenable. Under the circumstances, the possession taken over prior to the order passed by the Tribunal not being legally tenable, it is not permissible for the respondents to contend that possession of the land declared excess vacant has already been taken over prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act. 16. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the order dated 12.05.1992 passed by the Tribunal, setting aside the order passed by the competent authority and holding 43,570. sq. mts. 16. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the order dated 12.05.1992 passed by the Tribunal, setting aside the order passed by the competent authority and holding 43,570. sq. mts. of land to be excess vacant, further proceedings were initiated by issuing final statement under section 9 of the ULC Act and notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 thereof. However, thereafter, since no further steps were being taken, the petitioners were constrained to file the present petition, seeking a direction to the authorities to implement the order passed by the Tribunal. On 13.09.1994, notice came to be issued and status quo was ordered to be maintained. The interim relief continues to operate till date. Evidently therefore, no further proceedings have been taken after issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the ULC Act and in the meanwhile the Repeal Act has come into force, as a consequence whereof, it is no longer permissible for the respondents to proceed further and issue notification under section 10(3) of the Act and take further action for taking over the possession. The possession not having been taken over, prior to the coming into force of the Repeal Act all proceedings under the ULC Act, would stand abated. 17. On behalf of the respondents strong reliance has been placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Keshavlal Dungarshi Mavani v. State of Gujarat (supra) wherein the appellant therein had filed declaration under section 6 of the ULC Act wherein his wife was also a co-owner. The competent authority passed order under section 8(4) of the ULC Act, which was carried in appeal before the Tribunal, but subsequently the appeal came to be unconditionally withdrawn on 25.03.1985. In the meantime, prior to the order of the Tribunal, notifications under section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act came to be published. Proceedings under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act were also taken and compensation was fixed under section 11(2) of the ULC Act. In the meantime, prior to the order of the Tribunal, notifications under section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act came to be published. Proceedings under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act were also taken and compensation was fixed under section 11(2) of the ULC Act. It appears that against the order under section 11(2) of the Act, the appellants preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which partly allowed by appeal by an order dated 30.05.1988 and set aside the order under section 11(2) of the ULC Act and observed that proceedings be undertaken from the stage of section 10(5) of the ULC Act and reasonable opportunity be given and thereafter action be taken for taking over possession and pay compensation. It appears that thereafter fresh notice under section 10(5) of the ULC Act came to be issued, however, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1992 SC 1567 , the appellants filed another appeal before the Tribunal, which without considering the fact that earlier an appeal had already been filed against the order of the competent authority considered only the aspect of delay and held that 180 sq. mts of constructed property was to be excluded and declared the rest of the land admeasuring 2752.087 sq. mts. to be excess vacant. In the said case, the learned Single Judge had recorded that the order passed by the competent authority was not set aside in toto and was partly modified and therefore, the appellant would at best be entitled to reduction of 32 sq. mts of land and no more and consequently partly allowed the petition to that extent. The Division Bench, in the letters patent appeal filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, noted that the appeal had been partly allowed by the Tribunal and was of the view that the effect of the order would be to set aside the action of the competent authority to the extent of 180 sq. mts of the retainable land in addition to 1500 sq. mts. and the action of the competent authority of declaring 2752.08 sq. mts. was not disturbed. mts of the retainable land in addition to 1500 sq. mts. and the action of the competent authority of declaring 2752.08 sq. mts. was not disturbed. The court, therefore, did not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order of the Tribunal, the process was to be undertaken de novo in respect of all the lands and not in respect of land exceeding 2752 sq. mts. 18. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above decision, the order passed by the competent authority was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal for the first time. The Tribunal has, in the body of the order, observed that the order of the competent authority and all proceedings pursuant thereto are nullity and has thereafter allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the competent authority and has held that 43,570 sq. mts. of land to be excess vacant. The Tribunal has directed the competent authority to prepare a corrected final statement in terms of the said order. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority has issued a final statement in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal and has also issued a fresh notification under section 10(1) of the ULC Act. Thus, even the respondents have understood the order of the Tribunal to mean that fresh proceedings have to be undertaken from the stage of final statement under section 9 of the Act. It is only because, for reasons best known to the respondents, further steps were not taken after issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 the ULC Act, that the present petition came to be filed wherein by way of interim relief, the parties were directed to maintain status quo, which brought about a situation, whereby the Repeal Act came into force and the possession of the land declared excess vacant under the order of the Tribunal has not been taken over prior to the repeal of the ULC Act, resultantly, all the proceedings stand abated from the stage of section 10(1) notification. It is, therefore, now not open to the respondents to fall back upon the possession taken pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority under section 8(4) of the ULC Act, which stands set aside by the order passed by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, now not open to the respondents to fall back upon the possession taken pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority under section 8(4) of the ULC Act, which stands set aside by the order passed by the Tribunal. The facts of the present case, therefore, stand on a different footing from the facts of the case before the Division Bench in the above decision, and hence, the said decision would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 19. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the respondents that the possession of the excess vacant land was voluntarily handed over by the petitioners pursuant to the notice issued under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act, whereas on behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that proper procedure has not been followed and that two of the petitioners were not present and in the case of the third petitioner, his son has signed the possession receipt. Having regard to the above view taken by it, this court is of the view that it is not necessary to enter into any discussion on the merits of the question as to whether or not possession was legally taken over. However, since lengthy arguments have been made in this regard, this court has deemed it fit to briefly look into that aspect of the matter also. 20. As noticed earlier, pursuant to the notification issued under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the ULC Act, an order dated 29.03.1985 came to be issued under sub-section (5) of section 10. Thereafter, notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act came to be issued on 30.05.1985 calling upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the excess vacant land on 14.06.1985. Thereafter, instead of proceeding further under sub-section (6) of section 10 of the ULC Act and taking over possession of the land declared excess vacant, the respondents adopted a strange course of action and issued a second notice under sub-section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act on 28.02.1986, calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the lands declared excess vacant on 20.03.1986. Thereafter, it is the case of the respondents that on 05.03.1986, that is, much prior to the date fixed for taking over possession, the petitioners voluntarily handed over possession of the said land and possession receipt came to be issued in that regard. In this regard, a perusal of the possession receipt shows that the same has been signed only by Gordhanbhai Motibhai and Kiritbhai C. Patel son of Chhaganbhai Chhotabhai Patel. Assuming for the sake of argument that insofar as Chhaganbhai Chhotabhai Patel is concerned, he was represented by his son, the petitioners No. 2 and 4, namely, Maniben Bhagvanbhai Patel and Ambalal Motibhai Patel have not signed the possession receipt. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners No. 2 and 4 have voluntarily handed over possession of the lands declared excess vacant to the respondents. Moreover, the possession receipt itself records that there is cotton crop standing over the land in question and that the land holders have to take the same. It may also be pertinent to note that at the relevant time, no dispute has been raised by the petitioners as regards the possession of the land not having been taken in accordance with law and such dispute has been raised only after the coming into force of the Repeal Act. 21. It has also been contended by the petitioners that the possession taken over is merely in the nature of a paper possession and that actual physical possession has not been taken over by the respondents. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the documentary evidence which has been obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, which suggests that the subject lands were being cultivated. At this juncture, it may be germane to refer to the communication dated 19.03.1993 of the competent authority addressed to Gordhanbhai Motibhai and all the three other holders in the context of the declaration under section 6 of the ULC Act (Annexure-BB to the petition), wherein, he has categorically stated that the excess vacant land as shown in the final statement shall be acquired as and when the Government requires the same and till then the holder can continue with the possession thereof. Admittedly, therefore, even according to the respondents, the possession of the land declared excess vacant continued to be with the petitioners. Admittedly, therefore, even according to the respondents, the possession of the land declared excess vacant continued to be with the petitioners. This fact stands fortified by the statement made by the competent authority in the affidavit in reply filed in response to the petition wherein it has been stated that complying with the orders dated 12.05.1992 passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, the orders of allotment of land to the Vadodara Urban Development Authority automatically stands cancelled. Thus, it appears that even according to the respondents, after the order passed by the Tribunal, the possession of the land taken over pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority, no longer inured to the State Government and that the possession was with the petitioners which was to be taken over only as and when the Government required the same. 22. On the question as to whether the possession taken over by the respondents at the relevant time was in accordance with law, reliance has been placed upon various decisions by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 23.1 On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others, (supra). Reliance has also been placed upon the decision in the case of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 1608 . 23.2 Reliance was placed upon the decision of Balmokand Khatri Education and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212 , for the proposition 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. 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. 23.3 Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Viswam, (1996) 6 SCC 259, for the proposition that it is settled law by series of judgments of the Supreme Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or panchnama by the LAO in the present of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. 23.4 On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Magnum Promoters Private Limited v. Union of India, (2015) 3 SCC 327 , for the proposition that when the Government proceeds to take possession of the land acquired by it, it must take actual possession of the land since all interests in the land are sought to be acquired by it. There can be no question of taking "symbolical" possession in the sense understood by judicial decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. What the Land Acquisition Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. 23.5 Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 , for the proposition that the mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-section (5) of section 10 or forceful dispossession under Sub-section (6) of section 10. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-section (5) of section 10 or forceful dispossession under Sub-section (6) of section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of section 4 of the Repeal Act. In the facts of the said case, the State Government could not establish any of those situations. The court held that the High Court was right in holding that the respondent was entitled to get the benefit of section 4 of the Repeal Act. 24. Since the question as to whether or not possession has been actually taken over is a disputed question of fact, this court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not render any finding thereon one way or the other. However, from the facts as emerging from the record and more particularly, the stand of the respondents after the order passed by the Tribunal is concerned, prima facie, it appears that the possession of the subject lands has been retained by the petitioners as otherwise there was no necessity for the competent authority to address the letter dated 19.03.1993 to the petitioners informing them that the excess vacant land as shown in the final statement shall be acquired as and when the Government requires the same and till then the holder can continue with the possession thereof. 25. The upshot of the above discussion is that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority and holding that the order of the competent authority is a nullity and consequently all proceedings pursuant thereof are nullity, none of the proceedings taken pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority would survive. As held by this court in the case of Bhikhiben wd/o Devjibhai Patel (since deceased) v. State of Gujarat through the Principal Secretary (supra), even if the possession was bonafide taken over by the Government, by virtue of quashing the orders under which such possession was taken over the possession would no longer be legally tenable. Under the circumstances, the possession taken over pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority is no longer legally tenable. Under the circumstances, the possession taken over pursuant to the order dated 12.01.1984 passed by the competent authority is no longer legally tenable. After the order dated 12.05.1992 passed by the Tribunal, the proceedings have proceeded only till the stage of issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the ULC Act and no further proceedings for vesting the land declared excess vacant in the Government and taking over possession thereof have been undertaken. Therefore, upon the coming into force of the Repeal Act, the proceedings under the ULC Act would stand abated and it would not be permissible for the respondents to proceed further after the stage of issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the ULC Act. The consequence thereof would be that all the lands as originally held by the petitioners would remain with the petitioners as no possession of land declared excess vacant has been taken over after the order dated 12.05.1992 came to be passed by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration as prayed for in paragraph 13AA of the petition. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. It is held that the Urban Land Ceiling Repeal Act, 1999 applies to the excess vacant land admeasuring 43570 sq. mts. declared by the judgment Annexure B delivered by the Urban Land Tribunal. It is further held that the respondents have no right, title or interest over the entire land of survey No. 90, 91 and 92 of Sayajigunj, District Vadodara held by the petitioners in respect of which declaration under section 6 of the ULC Act had been filed, including the land admeasuring 43,570 sq.mts., being excess vacant land declared by the Urban Land Tribunal. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Gordhanbhai Motibhai Patel v. Competent Authority & Dy. Collector