JUDGMENT : B.M. Trivedi, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.9.1988 passed by the ULC Tribunal in Appeal No. 22/85, whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order dated 18.1.1985 passed by the competent Authority and Deputy Collector, declaring 915.62 sq. mtrs., of land belonging to the petitioner No. 2 as the excess vacant land. The petitioners have also challenged the Notice dated 4.11.1988 and the order dated 26.7.1989 issued by the Deputy Collector, Rajkot. 2. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that after the admission of the petition, it was dismissed for default vide the order dated 26.10.1999 and thereafter was restored on 30.6.2015 as per the order passed in MCA No. 969 of 2006. Under the circumstances, the petition remained dismissed for about more than 15 years. In the meantime, the office of the High Court had torn down the annexures and other documents. Hence, when the petition was listed for final hearing, the Court had permitted the learned Counsel for the petitioners to produce the copies of the annexures as were produced along with the main petition. It also appears that after the restoration of the petition, the petitioners had sought amendment in the petition for incorporating the contentions in the wake of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by means of Civil Application being C.A. No. 7976 of 2015, which application was dismissed by the Court vide the order dated 8.3.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the Letters Patent Appeal. However, the same was also dismissed. The petitioners thereafter had tried to place on record further-affidavit dated 1.8.2016, however, the same was subsequently withdrawn by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 3. The petition was originally filed by three petitioners - by the petitioner No. 1 Late Smt. Shantaben Bhagwanji Dakshini, petitioner No. 2 Late Shri Navinchandra Bhagwanji Dakshini through his heirs and the petitioner No. 3 Shri Mukundrai Bhagwanji Dakshini. So far as the facts of the present petition are concerned, it appears that the deceased petitioner No. 2 Shri Navinchandra Bhagwanji Dakshini had filled in Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act") showing his holdings. So far as the facts of the present petition are concerned, it appears that the deceased petitioner No. 2 Shri Navinchandra Bhagwanji Dakshini had filled in Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act") showing his holdings. When the said form was being processed by the respondent No. 1 the competent Authority and Deputy Collector, the petitioner No. 2 did not remain present in the said proceedings, though the requisite notices under Section 8 along with the draft statement were served to him. As a result thereof, the respondent No. 1 declared 915.62 sq. mtrs., of land from his holdings as the excess vacant land, vide the order dated 11.1.1985 (Annexure-B). The respondent No. 1 thereafter issued notice dated 4.11.1985 under Section 10(5), calling upon the petitioner No. 2 to hand over possession of the land in question. However, the same having not been handed over, the possession was taken over by the respondent No. 1 as per the order dated 26.7.1989 (Annexure-D). In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 Shantaben Bhagwanji challenged the order dated 11.1.1985 passed by the respondent No. 1 before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had issued the final statement without hearing the petitioners. In the appeal before the Tribunal also the petitioner No. 1 did not produce any evidence in support of the contentions raised. As a result thereof, the respondent No. 2 Tribunal vide the order dated 12.9.1988 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order dated 11.1.1985 passed by the respondent No. 1. 4. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the petitioners that the entire proceedings were conducted by the respondent No. 1 in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 had issued the final statement without issuing notice to all the petitioners, who were the members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). According to him, the notices and the draft statement issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 were not received by him and, therefore, he could not remain present before the respondent No. 1. According to him, the notices and the draft statement issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 were not received by him and, therefore, he could not remain present before the respondent No. 1. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 Tribunal also, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner No. 1 confirmed the said order passed by the respondent No. 1. Relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court, he submitted that the provisions contained in Section 10(5) are mandatory in nature and the possession of the land in question could not be taken by the State Government without issuing the notices to the persons interested. According to him, the respondent No. 1 had not stated in the impugned order as to how much holdings belong to the HUF of the petitioner No. 2 and as to how the land admeasuring 915.62 sq. mtrs., was declared as the excess vacant land. He submitted that the entire proceedings conducted by the respondents being null and void and the provisions under Section 10(5) having not been followed while taking possession of the land in question, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. The learned AGP, however, submitted that the petitioner No. 2 had never bothered to appear before the respondent No. 1 and had also not filed any appeal before the respondent No. 2 challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 1. She further submitted that all the respondents had given sufficient opportunity of hearing and of leading evidence to the petitioners, however, they had failed to avail of the said opportunity, and therefore, no fault could be found in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 6. In the instant case, it appears that the Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the ULC Act was filled in by the deceased petitioner No. 2 showing his holdings, however, he did not remain present in the proceedings before the respondent No. 1 competent Authority after the service of notice and the draft statement under Section 8 of the ULC Act. He also did not submit any objection against the said draft statement. As a result thereof, the competent Authority declared 915.62 sq. mtrs., of his land as excess vacant land. It is pertinent to note that the said order remained unchallenged at the instance of the petitioner No. 2. He also did not submit any objection against the said draft statement. As a result thereof, the competent Authority declared 915.62 sq. mtrs., of his land as excess vacant land. It is pertinent to note that the said order remained unchallenged at the instance of the petitioner No. 2. However, the same was challenged by his mother Shantaben i.e. the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had not issued notice to all the petitioners. From the impugned order dated 12.9.1989 passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the contention raised by the petitioner No. 1 was that the properties shown by the petitioner No. 2 in his Form No. 1 belonged to the HUF and the competent Authority had committed an error in declaring the land from the said lands as excess vacant land, without giving opportunity of hearing to the members of the HUF. In this regard, it is required to be noted that the petitioner No. 1 had failed to produce any evidence before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal to show that the lands belonged to the HUF. As transpiring from the order itself, though sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner No. 1, she had failed to raise any objection or produce any evidence to substantiate her contention that the lands in question belonged to the HUF. In any case, the petitioner No. 2, who had filled in the form under Section 6 had chosen not to file any appeal before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal against the order passed by the competent Authority. The Tribunal, therefore, considering the merits of the case, confirmed the order of the competent authority. No explanation is coming forth from the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to why the petitioner No. 2 had not filed any appeal before the Tribunal and as to why the petitioner No. 1, who had filed the appeal had not produced any evidence in support of their contention as regards the land in question being HUF property. 7. No explanation is coming forth from the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to why the petitioner No. 2 had not filed any appeal before the Tribunal and as to why the petitioner No. 1, who had filed the appeal had not produced any evidence in support of their contention as regards the land in question being HUF property. 7. So far as the challenge with regard to the possession of the land in question is concerned, it appears that the respondent No. 1 had issued the notice dated 4.11.1988 to the petitioner No. 2 - Annexure-C under Section 10(5) of the ULC, calling upon him to hand over the possession of the excess vacant land within 30 days, however, he having failed to hand over the same, another notice was issued on 26.7.1989 (Annexure-D), informing the petitioner No. 2 that the possession of the excess vacant land was already taken over in presence of the panch witnesses. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that though the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 12.9.1988, the petition was filed by the petitioners in October 1989 i.e. one year after the passing of the impugned order and in the meantime, the possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government. The submission of the learned Counsel Mr. Majmudar for the petitioners that since the panchnama was not produced along with the notice (Annexure-D), it could not be said that the possession was taken over after following due process of law, does not deserve any consideration, inasmuch as the mandatory requirement under Section 10(5) of the said Act was already duly complied with by the Deputy Collector by issuing the notice (Annexure-C). It is not disputed that the said notice was not received by the petitioner No. 2. 8. It is settled legal position that if the holder of the land or the person interested to whom the notice under Section 10(5) was issued fails to hand over the possession, the State Government can take over the possession by drawing the panchnama in presence of the panch witnesses. Beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust versus State of Punjab reported in (1996) 4 SCC 212 may be made in this regard. Beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust versus State of Punjab reported in (1996) 4 SCC 212 may be made in this regard. In the instant case, it appears that the said panchnama was drawn and the possession was taken over as back as in 1989 as per the Notice (Annexure-D). It is also pertinent to note that after the Repeal Act came into force, the present petition was not disposed of along with the other group of matters, as the learned AGP had made the statement that the possession of the land in question was taken over by the authorities long back in July 1990, as recorded in the order dated 7.7.1999. The said order also remained unchallenged at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners had sought to amend the petition in the wake of Repeal Act having come into force, however, the said amendment was not permitted to be carried out by the Court holding in the order dated 8.3.2016 that the possession of the surplus land was already taken over in 1989. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners. Even as per the averments made in paragraph 2 of the petition, the possession of the surplus land was taken over by the Collector vide the notice dated 26.7.1989 i.e. prior to filing of the petition. As stated herein above, the petition itself remained dismissed for default for about fifteen years. Hence, it was too late in the light of the day for the learned Advocate for the petitioners to contend that the possession of the land in question was not taken over by the respondents. 9. The learned Advocate Mr. As stated herein above, the petition itself remained dismissed for default for about fifteen years. Hence, it was too late in the light of the day for the learned Advocate for the petitioners to contend that the possession of the land in question was not taken over by the respondents. 9. The learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Banda Development authority, Banda v. Motilal Agarwal and Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 , in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 and in case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 2012(1) SCC 792 to submit that if the landowner had not surrendered the land voluntarily under Section 10(3), or after the notice under Section 10(5), or if he was not dispossessed by use of force, it could not be said that the State Government had taken over possession of the land. There can not be any disagreement with the proposition of law laid down in the said cases, however, the said decisions do not lend any assistance to the petitioners. In the instant case, the possession has been taken over by the respondent authorities after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No. 2 and after issuing requisite notices and after following the due process of law. 10. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in the present petition. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.