ORDER : A.J. SHASTRI, J. 1. Leave granted. Office to register F/LPA No.35147 of 2019 and give regular number. 2. These two Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 21.8.2019 in Special Civil Application No.6444 of 2008. 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.1722 of 2019 is filed by original respondent Nos.7, 16 and 22, whereas another Letters Patent Appeal is filed by proposed appellants after seeking leave to prefer an appeal, stated to be in ownership and possession of the affected properties in question. 4. The background of facts in which present proceedings have arisen is that the husband of petitioner was the original owner of parcels of land bearing Revenue Survey No.185 (Block No.198, admeasuring 05261 sq.mtrs.) and Revenue Survey No.195 (Block No.209, admeasuring 07790 sq.mtrs.) situated at village Kansad, Taluka – Choryasi, District – Surat. With respect to these lands, notice for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Government on 17.8.1981 and the same was received by the husband of the original petitioner on 6.3.1982. Pursuant to the said receipt of the notice, objections were lodged on 19.3.1982 by the husband of the original petitioner and one of the objections was proposed acquisition was not for any public purpose and the question of acquiring his land for the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board did not arise as there were no slums at all in the area of 10 miles from the said land. According to the original petitioner, without considering the said objections, the authority proceeded with acquisition proceedings and ultimately, acquired the land in question for the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board. 4.1 It is further the case of the original petitioner that on 15.3.1986, the State Government passed an order of acquisition and offered and paid meager amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5/per sq.mtr. i.e. Rs.12,000/per Vigha. This land even after acquisition remained idle and unutilized for the purpose for which it was acquired for a pretty long period of 18 years and more and not a single unit was constructed over the said land for the members of economically weaker section / lower income group. i.e. Rs.12,000/per Vigha. This land even after acquisition remained idle and unutilized for the purpose for which it was acquired for a pretty long period of 18 years and more and not a single unit was constructed over the said land for the members of economically weaker section / lower income group. 4.2 Upon making an inquiry, the original petitioner on 11.11.2003 came to know that the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board had abandoned the project of construction of houses for lower income group and economical backward class people. As a result of this, several representations were made before the authority by the original petitioner to regrant back the land which has been acquired, right upto the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State. Despite the aforementioned efforts being made by making representation for getting the land back, no action was initiated and no steps were taken by the authority which has resulted into preferring of Special Civil Application No.13825 of 2005 with a substantive prayers for regrant of the land. This Court vide order dated 11.7.2005 was pleased to dispose of the said petition by directing respondent No.3 herein to treat the Special Civil Application as a representation and take appropriate decision as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. In turn, the respondent No.4 herein i.e. Gujarat Slum Clearance Board vide communication dated 16.8.2005 informed the original petitioner that in view of the decision taken by the Town Planning Department on 1.3.2005, nothing further to be done in the matter and according to the original petitioner, this was never served upon her and it is for the first time attached with this communication dated 16.8.2005. 4.3 Further, it appears that respondent No.3 herein – Collector, Surat vide order dated 26.9.2005 rejected the representation for regrant of land substantially on the ground that the land in question has already been divided into plots of 25 sq. yards each and the same were to be sold to the people belonging to weaker section of the society and, therefore, request for regrant is not accepted. yards each and the same were to be sold to the people belonging to weaker section of the society and, therefore, request for regrant is not accepted. Subsequently, in the year 2007, it has been noticed by the original petitioner that over the land in question, instead of residence for the weaker section of the society, luxurious twin bungalows and rowhouses were being constructed and those bungalows being constructed by private builders and as such, the purpose for which the land was acquired and the reason for which regrant is not considered, has got frustrated apparently and surprisingly, it was conveyed that no sale of plots took place. However, in reality, the houses were constructed and being sold to the public at large for a consideration of Rs.18 lakhs each and it is apparently visualized by the original petitioner that there is a collusion and nexus with the builders and the authorities. As a result of this, the original petitioner on 4.7.2007 sought certain information from the Collector, Surat under the provision of Right to Information Act with respect to use of the land; with respect to transfer of land and regarding condition of transfer if has taken place. The Collector, Surat vide letter dated 9.4.2007 informed the original petitioner that since the same is not falling within his jurisdiction, forwarded the said application to Gujarat Slum Clearance Board. The Gujarat Slum Clearance Board, in turn, informed the original petitioner vide letter dated 12.6.2007 that the land bearing Survey No.185 came to be divided into 38 plots and the land bearing Survey No.195 came to be divided into 69 plots of 25 sq. yards each and allotted to the people belonging to weaker section of the society only and the plots were allotted by way of auction. However, the details with respect to aforesaid information have not been provided by any documentary material. 4.4 The original petitioner thereupon wrote a letter on 2.7.2007 to Surat Urban Development Authority, seeking certain information as to whether any development permission is granted or not. According to the original petitioner, on 20.7.2007, very reluctantly under the RTI application, some information has been provided. But the relevant particulars have not been provided which has led the original petitioner to prefer an appeal under the provision of Right to Information Act and the appellate authority on 31.8.2007, disposed of the said appeal. According to the original petitioner, on 20.7.2007, very reluctantly under the RTI application, some information has been provided. But the relevant particulars have not been provided which has led the original petitioner to prefer an appeal under the provision of Right to Information Act and the appellate authority on 31.8.2007, disposed of the said appeal. On 7.8.2007, by that time the original petitioner had informed the Chairman, SUDA about the construction put up on the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.185 and 195 indicating in specific terms that the construction in question is not in accordance with the plan which was approved by SUDA in the year 2005 and absolutely dehors the approved plan, the construction is going on. But unfortunately despite the request having been made, such illegal construction was not stopped. Ofcourse, the notices under the provision of the Town Planning Act were issued to the plot holders, who carried out the unauthorized construction and to the occupiers of plots which were sold by Gujarat Slum Clearance Board. Despite aforesaid notices, no action was taken by the authority against such unauthorized act and the construction put up by the private builders, though it was a duty of Gujarat Slum Clearance Board to ensure due compliance of the terms and conditions of the development permission. In clarificatory letter issued by Gujarat Slum Clearance Board, it was stated that the plots were allotted to the beneficiaries but, the individual allottees were required to obtain the necessary permission from SUDA. The detailed correspondence which took place between Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department and the Chief Executive Officer of SUDA, has revealed that few plots have been granted permissions but, the startling facts which have been noticed from such correspondence reads as under : “4.22 A letter dated 16th June, 2008 was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Urban Housing Department by the Chief Executive Officer, SUDA with regard to the aforesaid lands admeasuring 53,479 sq. mtrs stating that the development permission (for 25 yards plots) had been granted for 534 Units (for EWS) and (for 40.15 yards plots), had been granted for 743 Units (for LIG), wherein it was stated as under: “That the Development Permission sought by the Chairman, Radhakrishna Society for said land has been refused. That as per the records, the GSCB continues to be the owner of the subject land. That as per the records, the GSCB continues to be the owner of the subject land. That construction has been completed on 255 plots and that total 128 buildings are found to be amalgamated plots, whereas construction of 232 plots under progress where also the amalgamation of plots is done without any permission. That as per condition No.10 of GSCB terms/condition of allotment, the allottee shall not sell the plot without prior permission of the Board and in case of Breach, the possession of the plots shall be resumed. That despite demand, no information being divulged by GSCB and that allottees have amalgamated the plots and constructed Row Houses." 4.23 A letter dated 27th June, 2008 was also addressed by the respondent No.3G. S.C.B to the respondent No.4SUDA stating as under: “No revised permission obtained by the GSCB before conducting the auction. Development permission was given to the SLUM Clearance Board and not to the Individual Plot Holders. Even though the plots were allotted to the beneficiaries, yet the name of the GSCB is still reflected as an owner of the land in question in the government records, and that therefore there is no question of granting the development permission to the individual holders. That the Board has even given the construction permission on the land on which there was no development permission granted by the SUDA. As per the assurance given by the GSCB it was the responsibility of the GSCB to comply with the guidelines of the GDCR and therefore, the responsibility is of the Board to control the construction/development activities. On the above issues, the clarification dated 20th June, 2008 was not accepted by the SUDA.” 4.5 The aforesaid circumstance, according to the original petitioner, is nothing but an example of huge fraud being perpetrated by the office of Gujarat Slum Clearance Board in collusion with private builders and by giving no full details, face saving measure appears to have been adopted which has constrained the original petitioner to approach this Court by way of aforesaid writ petition. On 22.4.2008, the Court issued Rule and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para.11(D) and direct service was permitted. This prayer clause 11(D) reads as under : “RULE. Until further orders, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of para.11(D).Direct service is permitted today. On 22.4.2008, the Court issued Rule and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para.11(D) and direct service was permitted. This prayer clause 11(D) reads as under : “RULE. Until further orders, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of para.11(D).Direct service is permitted today. 4.6 Pursuant to the aforesaid prevailing circumstance, after completion of pleadings the Court has taken up the hearing. The respective respondents had filed and clarified their respective stand and on 6.10.2009, the Division Bench of this Court having noticed some circumstance and the statement made by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Area had issued certain directions which order deserves to be quoted hereinafter : “Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court Ms. Gauri KumariPrincipal Secretary Urban Development Area is present and made the following statement. 1. As per Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 it is the responsibility the development authority to control and regulate within its jurisdiction, in this case SUDA is supposed to take action on any development which is in accordance with regulations. The act does not make any discrimination with respect to ownership. Therefore in this matter SUDA shall take appropriate action as per law to take care of the construction in the said land. SUDA shall initiate the process and complete within the time limit. 2. The other aspect in the petition relates to the issues with the allotment. The Government shall in this matter appoint an inquiry and find out irregularities within the period of 6 months. 3.The land under consideration is not declared as a notified slum. Therefore the Gujarat Housing Board which inherits the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board is not responsible and cannot take any action under Slum Clearance Act. Moreover Gujarat Housing Board is also not declared as prescribed authority under the Slum Act. Given the situation SUDA has to take the task of the demolition of illegal construction. 2. In that view of the matter, we issue following directions. 1. SUDA will issue notice to the occupiers of the land in question on or before 8th October 2009 to demolish the illegal construction and if the said notice is not implemented, 2nd notice will be issued on 30th October 2009. 2. If such demolition is not done by the occupiers during the said given time, then SUDA will start the demolition and will complete the same on or before 26th November 2009. 3. 2. If such demolition is not done by the occupiers during the said given time, then SUDA will start the demolition and will complete the same on or before 26th November 2009. 3. To comply with the, directions of this Court the State Government will direct the Collector, Surat to depute responsible officer of the area, who is not below the rank of the Dy. Collector. 4. Dy. Police Commissioner will also go with his team and will ensure smooth demolition of the illegal constructions. 3. In view of the assurance given by the State Government, the inquiry in respect of the allotment of the Plots will be conducted by the Higher Officer of the State not below the rank of the Jt. Secretary and the said report will be submitted before this Court on or before 13th April 2010. 4. It is made clear that, as requested, six months time is granted to comply with the directions and no further time will be granted. If any extension is sought it will be at the cost of the concerned officer, who may be directed to deposit necessary amount from his personal account and only thereafter necessary application shall be entertained. 5.Matter to come upon 2nd December 2009. Direct service today.” 4.7 Against this order passed by the Division Bench, the owners / occupiers went before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, apprehending demolition and action. Said Special Leave Petition (C) No.31355 of 2009 and the Apex Court stayed the direction of demolition. On 29.12.2009, respondent No.5 authority submitted counter affidavit before the Apex Court admitting illegal construction and also admitted the fact that 17 plots were amalgamated into 10 bigger plots without permission of SUDA. Hence, the Apex Court on 29.8.2014 was pleased to pass following order : “Leave granted. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 6th October, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.6444/2008 which reads as follows: “Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court Ms. Gauri KumariPrincipal Secretary Urban Development Area is present and made the following statement. 1. As per Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 it is the responsibility the development authority to control and regulate within its jurisdiction, in this case SUDA is supposed to take action on any development which is in accordance with regulations. Gauri KumariPrincipal Secretary Urban Development Area is present and made the following statement. 1. As per Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 it is the responsibility the development authority to control and regulate within its jurisdiction, in this case SUDA is supposed to take action on any development which is in accordance with regulations. The act does not make any discrimination with respect to ownership. Therefore in this matter SUDA shall take appropriate action as per law to take care of the construction in the said land. SUDA shall initiate the process and complete within the time limit. 2. The other aspect in the petition relates to the issues with the allotment. The Government shall in this matter appoint an inquiry and find out irregularities within the period of 6 months. 3. The land under consideration is not declared as a notified slum. Therefore the Gujarat Housing Board which inherits the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board is not responsible and cannot take any action under Slum Clearance Act. Moreover Gujarat Housing Board is also not declared as prescribed authority under the Slum Act. Given the situation SUDA has to take the task of the demolition of illegal construction. 2. In that view of the matter, we issue following directions. 1. SUDA will issue notice to the occupiers of the land in question on or before 8th October 2009 to demolish the illegal construction and if the said notice is not implemented, 2nd notice will be issued on 30th October 2009. 2. If such demolition is not done by the occupiers during the said given time, then SUDA will start the demolition and will complete the same on or before 26th November 2009. 3. To comply with the, directions of this Court the State Government will direct the Collector, Surat to depute responsible officer of the area, who is not below the rank of the Dy. Collector. 4. Dy. Police Commissioner will also go with his team and will ensure smooth demolition of the illegal constructions. 3. In view of the assurance given by the State Government, the inquiry in respect of the allotment of the Plots will be conducted by the Higher Officer of the State not below the rank of the Jt. Secretary and the said report will be submitted before this Court on or before 13th April 2010. 4. 3. In view of the assurance given by the State Government, the inquiry in respect of the allotment of the Plots will be conducted by the Higher Officer of the State not below the rank of the Jt. Secretary and the said report will be submitted before this Court on or before 13th April 2010. 4. It is made clear that, as requested, six months time is granted to comply with the directions and no further time will be granted. If any extension is sought it will be at the cost of the concerned officer, who may be directed to deposit necessary amount from his personal account and only thereafter necessary application shall be entertained. Matter to come upon 2nd December 2009. Direct service today.” The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the aforesaid order has been passed without hearing the appellants though the order will affect the appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Apart from the aforesaid fact, we find that the impugned order has been passed by the High Court without recording reasons for issuing such direction. For the said reason, we set aside the impugned order dated 6th October, 2009 passed by the High Court with liberty to the High Court to pass order in accordance with law after notice to the affected parties. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation.” 4.8 It is noticed from the record that after that the matter came back to this Court from the Apex Court, none of the private respondents or the original occupants preferred any application for seeking impleadment in the main matter, though were specifically aware and mindful of the aforesaid litigation. On the contrary, later on, pursuant to the Civil Application No.1 of 2018 having been preferred, the Court issued notices upon private respondents vide order dated 13.8.2018 and these notices have been served upon private respondent Nos.5 to 24. On the contrary, later on, pursuant to the Civil Application No.1 of 2018 having been preferred, the Court issued notices upon private respondents vide order dated 13.8.2018 and these notices have been served upon private respondent Nos.5 to 24. During the course of proceedings, after the main matter having been fully heard and the judgment was kept reserved; one another Civil Application came to be preferred by some of the occupants of the houses constructed on the land in question, with a request to hear them and it was noticed by the Court that out of fear, the occupants started transferring the properties and the properties have kept on changing hands and the request for impleadment in the main matter did not entertain by the Court, as noticed from the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hearing at length came to be concluded by the learned Single Judge and ultimately, having found certain serious circumstances based upon the report submitted by the Collector, Surat dated 25.1.2010, the learned Single Judge found gross irregularities from the beginning at the end of Gujarat Slum Clearance Board in seeking auction in respect of allotment and though the lands were acquired for some specific purpose, not utilized and some fraud appears to have been committed of a serious nature. During pendency of the petition, certain directions have been issued which are contained in Para.16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 and the matter was directed to be notified on 30.12.2019 to be placed along with the report of Special Investigation Team. This order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.8.2019 is seriously resisted by the appellants original respondent Nos.7, 16 and 22 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1772 of 2019 and challenged the same by present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 4.9 Similar is the challenge by other occupants , who sought leave to prefer an appeal and challenged the said decision on multiple grounds. 4.10 Both these Letters Patent Appeals as such have come up before us, wherein the learned counsels for the respective parties have submitted their case. 4.9 Similar is the challenge by other occupants , who sought leave to prefer an appeal and challenged the said decision on multiple grounds. 4.10 Both these Letters Patent Appeals as such have come up before us, wherein the learned counsels for the respective parties have submitted their case. 4.11 We have heard Shri Mitul Shelat, learned counsel assisted by Mrs.Disha Nanavaty, learned counsel for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.1722 of 2019 and connected civil applications, whereas Shri Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Vyom Shah, learned counsel for the appellants in F/Letters Patent Appeal No.35147 of 2019 and connected civil application, whereas on behalf of original petitioners, we have heard Shri Satyen Thakkar, learned counsel in both the appeals. 5. Shri Mitul K. Shelat, learned counsel, has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not considering each of the submissions which have been tendered by way of written submissions. As a result of this, said error of not considering the submissions deserves to be corrected. It has been categorically submitted that the allotment of plots in question was pursuant to the auction held after due public notice by Gujarat Slum Clearance Board and there was no serious irregularity of any nature either with respect to allotment or in respect of construction. According to Shri Shelat, the only deviation which might be since it was found that approved plan comprising of ground floor and superstructure and since the same was very difficult to manage as a matter of convenience, the neighbouring plot owners notionally amalgamated the unit of one family on the ground floor and one family on the first floor and there is nothing like luxurious bungalow nor rowhouses, as alleged and, therefore, false assertion is made in respect of development made over the land in question. 5.1 It has been vehemently contended that this minor irregularities even if, can always be corrected and is capable of regularization and in fact, the applications in that direction are very much pending for consideration and this fact has been suppressed by the original petitioner. It has been the say of Shri Shelat, learned counsel, that private respondents have already submitted their applications in the month of February,2013. It has been the say of Shri Shelat, learned counsel, that private respondents have already submitted their applications in the month of February,2013. It has been further contended by Shri Shelat that the relief which has been sought in the petition if to be considered, the same would tantamount to be interfering with the statutory function of an authorities which authorities are already invested with discretionary power under the statute. Section 36(1)(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning Act is clearly investing discretion in the authority. As a result of this, the writ jurisdiction ought not to have been exercised by the learned Single Judge. According to Shri Shelat, learned counsel, on the contrary, the original petitioner has no locus to bring the petition before this Court as the original petitioners are claiming to be the legal heir of the land owners, whose lands have been acquired and as such, the only remedy which is available to the original petitioner is to take appropriate step for redressal of her grievance under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act. This bringing of petition is not permissible to the original petitioner and since a specific remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction ought not to have been invoked and for this purpose, Shri Shelat, learned counsel, has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 335 and C. Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. & Ors, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627 . 5.2 Shri Shelat, learned counsel, has further submitted that this original petitioner is not holding any of the plots and as such, not only the original petitioner has no locus but, then the original petitioner has approached the Court at a much belated stage and the learned Single Judge, according to Shri Shelat, learned counsel, has proceeded on the footing as if some crime is committed and the directions are issued which are in the form of monitoring the process of investigating machinery and as such, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dealing with the proceedings. 5.3 In addition to aforesaid submissions, Shri G.M.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Vyom Shah, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 35147 of 2019, has vehemently contended that such an order cannot be passed by the learned Single Judge, especially when the writ petition is not in the form of Public Interest Litigation. It has been submitted by Shri Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, that these directions, on the contrary, have been issued without granting any opportunity to the appellants. According to Shri Gautam Joshi, though the Apex Court conveyed in its order dated 29.8.2014 granting liberty to the High Court to pass an order in accordance with law, after notice to the affected parties and by referring to the said order, Shri Gautam Joshi has submitted that though the appellants are directly affected parties to the outcome of present proceedings, they have not been heard and as such, this serious lapse on the part of learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. It has been submitted that the Court concluded the hearing of the matter, without impleading the affected parties. On 11.12.2018, an order was passed recording that arguments concluded, C.A.V. and as such, the appellants of this Letters Patent Appeal being directly affected, had preferred Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2019 for recalling and/or reviewing the order dated 11.12.2018 along with a prayer to implead these appellants in the main Special Civil Application. But, unfortunately, according to Shri Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, this request has not been considered by the learned Single Judge essentially on the premise that even if they are affected, their claim of equity cannot be considered and the would delay the proceedings and just on the basis of unilateral report of the Collector, Surat dated 25.1.2010, the hearing came to be concluded as if some fraud is committed. This inference which has been drawn by the learned Single Judge, according to learned Senior Counsel, without any basis and had the opportunity been given, probably, the order would not have been passed. The learned Single Judge, according to Shri Gautam Joshi has categorically nonsuited the appellants, without affording any opportunity. According to Shri Gautam Joshi, there will be a serious prejudice if this investigation is unilaterally allowed to be conducted and concluded. The learned Single Judge, according to Shri Gautam Joshi has categorically nonsuited the appellants, without affording any opportunity. According to Shri Gautam Joshi, there will be a serious prejudice if this investigation is unilaterally allowed to be conducted and concluded. Shri Gautam Joshi has submitted that though before the judgment was delivered, by way of specific application, the hearing was sought before the learned Single Judge since the applicants of that Civil Application are actual occupants of the house constructed over the land in question. But the same was not taken in right spirit by the learned Single Judge and the request came to be declined. It has been submitted that the entire order has been passed as if some serious fraud is established already on record and only on the basis of just inference, the learned Single Judge appears to have issued directions which are thoroughly uncalled for. It has been contended that if perusal of entire record to be seen, the writ jurisdiction could not have been exercised at all at the instance of original petitioner, who otherwise has no locus at all. It has been submitted that there is a construction in accordance with the plan and it is for the persons who are coming in the format of amalgamated policy and the structures which are shown in the photographs are amalgamated constructions, cannot be said to be luxurious bungalows nor the rowhouses and as such, there seem to be no need of such kind of directions which are issued practically exparte to the appellants. That being so, the fishing inquiry which is ordered to be conducted by way of issuing directions is not within the realm of extraordinary jurisdiction. Shri Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, has, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any irregularity of any nature, the appellants may not be put to jeopardy in any form. These directions as such, according to the appellants of this Letters Patent Appeal, are uncalled for and the same be set aside, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, Shri H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the SUDA, appears to have urged before the learned Single Judge that this is a case of large scale fraud in respect of allotment and in respect of unauthorized construction. 6. On the other hand, Shri H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the SUDA, appears to have urged before the learned Single Judge that this is a case of large scale fraud in respect of allotment and in respect of unauthorized construction. It was also pointed out before the learned Single Judge that SUDA, who represented in the Apex Court, has in categorical terms asserted and prima facie established that large scale fraud has been committed and the persons responsible and connected with such, may be dealt with seriously. None of the appellants and the private respondents can be said to be bonafide purchasers in any form. 7. We have seen from the record that even Shri B.M.Bambhania, learned counsel appearing for the Board, has very candidly submitted that case is one of the large scale fraud and he adopted the arguments canvassed by and the stand taken by the SUDA. 8. To have more assistance in the present proceedings, we allowed Shri S.N.Thakkar, learned counsel, who originally appeared in the writ petition representing the original petitioner, who submitted that there is a detailed report submitted by the Collector, Surat which is seriously taken note of by the learned Single Judge and has ultimately urged that this large scale fraud deserves thorough investigation and as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly issued directions. It has been submitted that in addition to the report to the Collector, Surat that some cash deposit is made in one account and from that, allotment charges have been paid with respect to the persons, who applied and that has been examined at length by the learned Single Judge and only thereafter, a detailed order is passed, which in respectful submission of Shri Thakkar, is absolutely just and proper. 9. While submitting this, Shri Thakkar, learned counsel, has drawn our attention to the previous orders which have been passed by the Division Bench as well as the order passed by the Apex Court and various other documents attached with this compilation and has submitted that this is absolutely a fraud being practiced in connivance which has rightly been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. It has been submitted that right now, the learned Single Judge has ordered mere inquiry by a particular agency and, therefore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to any of the appellants, because unless and until this report is received by the Court, the apprehension of demolition is misplaced. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel, has submitted that acquisition was originally made by the State Government for the purpose of enabling Gujarat Slum Clearance Board to construct the houses for economically weaker section of society / lower income group and accordingly, the plan was submitted and approved for construction of houses on plots admeasuring 25 sq. yards and 40 sq. yards respectively. No construction was made over the period of time about 17 years after acquisition and without placing any revised plan and the specific approval, the Gujarat Slum Clearance Board sold the plots to the builders and higher income group people, who constructed their luxurious bungalows and rowhouses and for that purpose, on paper it has been shown two dummy persons of the same family and so much so, the plots have been amalgamated dehors the plan and without any specific permission. This entire allotment is nothing but based upon fraud practiced upon the people and that has to be unearthed. Resultantly, the order which has been passed is just and proper. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel, has submitted that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in not accepting the impleadment request of the appellants of other appeal, since they are none else but mere beneficiaries of the fraud and as such, do not deserve to be joined in the proceedings. When the admitted fraud is very much reflecting from the record, as prima facie found by the learned Single Judge, the exercise which is directed to be undertaken does not call for any interference. On the contrary, it has been submitted vehemently that the photographs in question would abundantly make it clear that these constructions are not to be utilized by economically weaker section of the society and visibly under the name of economically weaker section of the society, the builders and private respondents have taken the loan and put up the construction in utter disregard to the norms, without obtaining any prior permission and completely dehors the plans which have been approved originally. It has been further submitted that none of the original allottees have come forward which is also indicative of the fact as to what has been done to the land in question in connivance. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel, has submitted that even the Apex Court has remitted back the matter for further consideration so as to pass an order examining in detail and when that be so, the exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unjust or improper in any form. There seem to be no illegality in passing such order. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel, then has drawn our attention to two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 95 and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. MSS Food Products, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 196 and has contended that both the appeals do not deserve to be entertained. 10. Further decisions of the Apex Court have been brought to our notice which are reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627 , (2003) 1 SCC 335 and (2012) 13 SCC 14 and thereby, a request is made to pass appropriate order. 11. Having gone through the record at length and having examined the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, prima facie we find that some of the aspects which are visible from the record have rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge which we cannot unnotice. 12. From the record, not only the learned Single Judge has noticed but we also have noted the seriousness about the magnitude of the irregularities which have been crept in, in respect of allotment and use of plots which have been acquired for a particular purpose. It has been noticed that for allotment and disposal of plots, the report of the Collector, Surat dated 25.1.2010 indicates that no approval from the Board is obtained for fixation of upset price. It was also noticed that deposit of allotment has been in the same bank in continuous numbered drafts and this sequence is also indicative of something which is not normal. As per the report, the allotment of plots was made before getting revived development permission from SUDA and there is irregularity in fixation of upset price which is also without approval of the Board. As per the report, the allotment of plots was made before getting revived development permission from SUDA and there is irregularity in fixation of upset price which is also without approval of the Board. It was also noticed that no sufficient efforts have been made to put to the knowledge of the general public about the advertisement, so that maximum people can take advantage. It was found that in a tiny advertisement, the publication was made on 26.11.2003 on ‘first come first basis’ and out of 117 plots, only 47 plots allotment is done on the date of auction and for remaining, as said earlier, very small advertisement is published. The gist of the report was that bank drafts are in continuous number and further, there is no proper verification about the status of applicants, whether they fall within the parameters of economically weaker section or not. The eligibility inquiry which was to be made was not done before the deposit and allotment. Along with the application for seeking allotment, the evidence with regard to residential particulars, ration card, voters list and certificate of TalaticumMantri have not been attached and based upon this, the Collector, Surat found that there is some irregularity and accordingly, it was reported. 13. From the record, it further found that action has been initiated way back in1981 and for a pretty long period of almost 18 years approximately, the land was not put to the use for which it was intended to be acquired which appears to have resulted into a request for return back the land and for which, several persons have written to the authorities on various occasions. Some of the land owners, whose lands have been acquired, have also written to various authorities including the Hon’ble Chief Minister in the month of November,2004 with a request to return back the land as the same was acquired not only at throw away price but, has not been put to use for which it was intended to acquire and, therefore, some persons in past approached this Court by way of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.13825 of 2005 and the representations were directed to be decided by this Court i.e. the learned Single Judge on 11.7.2005 within a period of 3 months. By that time, serious irregularities have been spotted and the auction which was undertaken in which it was found that one single party was to be allotted 132 plots at a time and having noticed this fact, several persons made hue and cry which had compelled the officers to cancel the said public auction. It was also noticed in the daily newspaper “Gujarat Samachar” reflecting on page82 of the petition compilation. So from the record, it has been found by the learned Single Judge that there are serious irregularities have been committed and which can also be seen from Page117 which has indicated that persons belonging to economically weaker section of the society have been allotted plot admeasuring 25 sq. yards and the particulars have been given as if the purpose is already fulfilled. But then ground reality surfaced something else which was pointed out by attaching several photographs which apparently indicate that this huge construction may not be of individual 25 sq. yards plot, bungalow as well as twin bungalow is visible from the photographs which are attached on page122 around. 14. As against this, from the pleadings it appears that original respondent No.4 has pointed out in affidavit-in-reply specifically that unauthorized construction has been put up by the plot holders, who were sold/allotted plots and the said construction was noticed as unauthorized, as it was without getting any plan and layout sanctioned from SUDA. Several documents are also attached with the said affidavit-in-reply filed and affirmed on 30.6.2009. This affidavit has further indicated that even some of the houses have been sealed and security guards have been deployed by taking assistance of private agency so as to prevent further unauthorized or illegal construction. It has been categorically asserted by the deponent in the said affidavit that necessary actions in the form of notices on the wrong doers have been issued and steps are in contemplation. 15. The record of the Letters Patent Appeal No.1722 of 2019 further indicates that respondent No.2 Special Land Acquisition Officer has asserted that Section 4 notification was published in 1981 and the lands have been acquired in the year 1986. But then the role of this answering respondent is just to acquire the land and pay the compensation. 15. The record of the Letters Patent Appeal No.1722 of 2019 further indicates that respondent No.2 Special Land Acquisition Officer has asserted that Section 4 notification was published in 1981 and the lands have been acquired in the year 1986. But then the role of this answering respondent is just to acquire the land and pay the compensation. But the further affidavit filed by Gujarat Slum Clearance Board is indicating that several senior officers and majority of senior officers from the Board have availed the special scheme of VRS and relieved themselves from the service of Gujarat Slum Clearance Board and there are as many as 22 in numbers. But this affidavit is indicating that part of the housing project and actual execution was deferred on account of financial crunch since approximately Rs.48.78 crores were due and payable to HUDCO and the Government of Gujarat and in turn, the Government of Gujarat was constrained to take a policy decision and further construction activities were restricted and regulated. On account of this financial crunch, the HUDCO had initiated the proceedings in Debt Recovery Tribunal in which certain orders were passed of attachment of Government accounts in execution proceedings. With the result, in 2003 the Government directed the Board to take all possible steps for disposal of the premises and plots and to make all efforts to meet with the recovery of dues and taking advantage of this situation, in turn, in the year 2003, a public advertisement appeared in daily newspaper; open auction bids were invited on the site for respective plots admeasuring 25 sq. yards and subject to fulfillment of criteria of urban poor, member of the economically weaker section of the society and bids have been accepted subject to scrutiny which has resulted into some heartburning as beneficiaries of allotment found are not in terms of the policy which has given rise to filing of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1735 of 2006. But this affidavit did indicate that for want of executive officers and lacks of will to deal with public issues and to discharge public duties, the question of encroachment and the dealing with the plots have been occasioned and as such, some steps have been taken by issuing notices. But then the sum and substance of this affidavit is that competitive bids have been invited and there seem to be no irregularity. But then the sum and substance of this affidavit is that competitive bids have been invited and there seem to be no irregularity. As a result of this, entire planning was made with prior approval of SUDA. It has been asserted by the deponent of this affidavit sworn in July,2009, has indicated that ultimately the authorities conferred with the power, to take decision against the illegal construction over the land, as also the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.4 has not permitted any resale of plots or clubbing of plots. Now, despite this fact, it has appeared from the photographs and the other materials from which the learned Single Judge has found serious irregularities which prima facie rightly needs some detailed inquiry. 16. We have seen from the order that the learned Single Judge has examined the material at length, has given painstaking hearing to the learned counsel and after thorough analysis of record, it has been categorically found that huge malfunctioning has taken place which needs to be investigated. 17. Initially, the learned Single Judge did examine the issue and after considering at length the written submissions, found expedient to inquire further the issue raised in the present proceedings at length. Hence, pending the petition, issued certain directions and the matter is kept pending to come up for further hearing on 20.12.2019. 18. Considering the magnitude of the irregularities which have been examined by the learned Single Judge prima facie and in view of the fact that at this stage, the SIT is to look into the issues which have been referred to and directed to prepare and exhaustive report to be placed before the Court within a period of 4 months, we are not inclined to disturb such process in any manner, particularly when serious allegations are levelled in respect of allotment of plots; in respect of alleged unauthorized construction which are going on or have been put up and in respect of an attempt to frustrate the very object for which the land was acquired. 19. Since the learned Single Judge has directed to investigate the matter in the context of directions which are contained in the order, we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on merit. As a result of this, the judgments which have been pressed into service, have not been gone into at great length. 19. Since the learned Single Judge has directed to investigate the matter in the context of directions which are contained in the order, we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on merit. As a result of this, the judgments which have been pressed into service, have not been gone into at great length. But having perused the same, we see no reason to apply the same as a straitjacket formula, as this background of case is altogether distinct from what has been visible from other judgments which are cited before us. 20. The decision taken by the learned Single Judge is after examination of record and as such, at this stage of the proceedings, we are not inclined to intercept the process which is directed to be undertaken by the authorities, as contained in the impugned order. Moment the SIT submits the exhaustive report before the Court, it is always open for the affected persons to ventilate their grievances and the submissions which are sought to be made. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in both the Letters Patent Appeals. Resultantly, both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. 21. Consequently, connected Civil Applications also stand dismissed.