ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the purchaser of the land which was already declared surplus and acquired by the State under provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The averments made by the Petitioner in the writ petition in paras 3.1 and 3.2 in this regard are relevant and are quoted below for ready reference: “3.1 That the petitioner is a resident of Rajkot and has purchased land admeasuring about 300 sq.yds. situated in Revenue Survey No.172, 174(2), 175(2) and 253 in village Kotharia of Rajkot Taluka having non-agriculture permission Plot No.78 in its Southern direction under a registered sale deed from the owner and holder of the said land, viz. Vrajlal Madhavjibhai Padalia and Sameer Kirtikumar Ravani, both resident of Rajkot. That the said transaction took place on 12.12.2001 between the parties and was also registered on the same day. That the copy of the said sale deed is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ‘A’ collectively alongwith its index No.2. 3.2 The petitioner begs to submit that he also purchased the land admeasuring about 300 sq.yds. from the same plot but of Northern direction from the same Revenue Survey No., viz. 172, 174(2) and 175(2) and 253 in the Revenue of Rajkot. They are given new Survey Nos.149, 154, 155 and 156 paiki from Prime Cage Pvt. Ltd., a registered limited Company through its Director Prakashkumar Dhirajlal Kaneria and Shaileshkumar Mohanlal Tilva of Rajkot under the registered sale document on payment of full consideration amount of Rs.2 lacs. The petitioner begs to submit that in this regard the relevant revenue documents showing the transfer endorsement by Mamlatdar, Rajkot are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ‘C’.” 2. The petitioner begs to submit that in this regard the relevant revenue documents showing the transfer endorsement by Mamlatdar, Rajkot are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ‘C’.” 2. The following prayers were made in the writ petition: “7(A) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition or the like by quashing and setting aside the impugned indicated and contemplated action at Annexure ‘E’ to the petition by the respondent authorities mainly by respondent No.2 and 3 by which impliedly the land held, possessed and owned by the petitioner is likely to be usurped from him in the name of Urban Land Ceiling procedure and the proceedings declaring it to be the surplus land; and/or (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition by restraining the respondent authorities from taking away or disturbing the ownership, possession and holding of the petitioner with regard to the land admeasuring about 600 sq.yds. in plot No.78 in both Northern and Southern direction of old Revenue Survey No.172, 174(2), 175(2) and 253 of Kotharia village in Rajkot Taluka, in Dist. Rajkot; and/or (C) by way of interim relief, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities, their agents and servants from disturbing the possession of the petitioner of the land in question in any manner whatsoever, till the final disposal of this writ petitioner; and/or (D) any other and further relief/s that may deem, just and proper be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. Upon issuance of the notices, the Respondent State filed Reply to the writ petition and two Affidavits have been filed by the Respondent State, viz. first Affidavit by Mr. I.K. Patel, Additional Collector (Co-ord.) and Competent Authority under the ULC Act, Rajkot, relevant paras of which with regard to the proceedings undertaken under provisions of the ULC Act are quoted below for ready reference: “5. I say and submit that original land owner filed Form-6A of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on 10.09.1976. Same was produced by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Rajkot and as it was found that the original land holder was entitled to 1 unit only i.e. 1500 square meters. It was held that original land owner was having 2172.12 square meters as Excess Vacant. 6. Same was produced by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Rajkot and as it was found that the original land holder was entitled to 1 unit only i.e. 1500 square meters. It was held that original land owner was having 2172.12 square meters as Excess Vacant. 6. I say and submit that details of land, which was declared as Excess Vacant, is given in the Table-B herein below: Sr. No. Details Area (Square Meters) Total measurement of Area (Square Meters) 1. Village Kothariya:Survey No.172, 174(2), 253 Plot No.78 501.68 501.68 2. Village Mavadi: Survey No.51 Plot No.47 paiki 214.11 Plot No.48 457.43 Plot No.17 & 18 998.90 1670.44 Grand Total 2172.12 square meters 7. Is ay and submit that in view of the fact that 2172.12 square meters of the land of the holding of the original land owner, was declared a Excess Vacant and therefore, Notification under section 10(1) came to be issued on 08.01.1982 and same was published in the Official Gazette on 18.03.1982. 8. I say and submit that Notification under section 10(3) came to be issued on 13.05.1982 and same was published in the Official Gazette on 19.08.1982. 9. I say and submit that Notice under section 10(5) came to be issued on 14.11.1983. Once again, Notice under section 10(5) of the Act came to be issued on 11.01.1984. 10. I say and submit that possession of the land in question was taken over under the provision of 10(6) by way of the Panchnama on 24.01.1984 for the land which was Excess Vacant in Village Kothariya. 11. I say and submit that possession of the land of Village Mavadi was taken over by drawing the Panchnama [under section 10(6)] on 06.11.1986. A copy of the Notifications under section 10(1), 10(3), 10(5) & Panchnama under section 10(6) are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I (colly.). 12. Thus, it is crystal clear that land in question as mentioned herein above, was declared as Excess Vacant land and the possession of the same was taken over way back in the year 1984 and 1986 respectively. 13. I say and submit that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the competent authority of the declaring land as Excess Vacant, the original land owner, Power of Attorney holder of the sons of original land owner preferred an appeal under section 33 of the Act before the Urban Land Tribunal. 14. 13. I say and submit that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the competent authority of the declaring land as Excess Vacant, the original land owner, Power of Attorney holder of the sons of original land owner preferred an appeal under section 33 of the Act before the Urban Land Tribunal. 14. I say and submit that the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad, rejected an appeal of the above mentioned persons on 18.07.1996. A copy of Order of the Urban Land Tribunal dated 18.07.1996 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-II. 15. I say and submit that Kirtikumar Dhanjibhai Ravani, who was the power of attorney holder of the original land owner Lilamben Himatlal Shah, gave an application for obtaining the certificate that the land of Village Kothariya [501(66)] is not Excess Vacant along with the said application and order purported be passed by the Urban Land Tribunal dated 26.03.1999 was also produced. It would be appropriate to point out at this stage, said order dated 26.03.1999 was found to be bogus. 16. I say and submit that statement of the power of attorney holder Kirtikumar Dhanjibhai Ravani was recorded on 02.07.1999 by the Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Rajkot. 17. I say and submit that verification of the above mentioned order dated 26.03.1999 (bogus order) was done vide letter of the office of the answering deponent dated 21.07.1999 seeking details regarding the truthfulness of the above mentioned order (Bogus) from the Urban Land Tribunal. Simultaneously, guidance was also sought for office of the answering deponent, from the Revenue Department vide letter dated 24.07.1999. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-III is a copy of the Order dated 26.03.1999 (Bogus). 18. It is respectfully submitted that letter was received by the office of the answering deponent from the office of the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 31.07.1999 indicating therein that no such appeal/order (bogus order – 26.03.1999) was ever passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad. A copy of letter of the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 31.07.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-IV. 19. I say and submit that vide letter dated 24.03.1999, the Revenue Department advised / gave guidance to the office of the answering deponent to initiate the prosecution in the case. A copy of letter of the Revenue Department dated 24.09.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-V. 20. 19. I say and submit that vide letter dated 24.03.1999, the Revenue Department advised / gave guidance to the office of the answering deponent to initiate the prosecution in the case. A copy of letter of the Revenue Department dated 24.09.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-V. 20. I say and submit that the letter was addressed to the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 03.05.2004 indicated that as order of the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad was bogus, police complaint should be initiated. A copy of letter dated 03.05.2004 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-VI. 21. I say and submit that on 25.05.2004, the Revenue Department instructed the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad, to file police complaint. The office of the answering deponent vide letter dated 31.08.2003 intimated to give all the details so as to enable the Urban Land Tribunal to file the police case. 22. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the original land owner has tried to overreach process of the provision of the law by indulging in the illegality and apparently committed an offence. 23. I say and submit that the petitioners claim to be purchasers o land admeasuring about 300 sq. yds. situated in Revenue Survey No.172, 174(2), 175(2) and 253 in village Kothariya of Rajkot Taluka having Plot No.78 under a registered sale deed from Vrajlal Madhavjibhai Padalia and Sameer Kirtikumar Ravani, both resident of Rajkot on 12.12.2001. 24. I say and submit that so also, claim to have purchased the land admeasuring about 300 sq. yds. from the same plot but of Northern direction from the same Revenue Survey no. viz. 172, 174(2) and 175(2) and 253 in the Revenue of Rajkot, from Prime Cage Pvt. Ltd. a registered limited Company through its Director Prakashkumar Dhirajlal Kaneria and Shaileshkumar Mohanlal Tilva of Rajkot under the registered sale document on payment of full consideration amount of Rs.2 lacs vide sale deed dated 19.11.2003. 25. Thus, I say and submit that it appears that the persons who have alleged to have sold the land to the petitioners, do not have any right, title and interest for the land in question. Thus, persons, who have no right, title and interest in the land in question, power to have sold the land to the present petitioners. 26. Thus, I say and submit that it appears that the persons who have alleged to have sold the land to the petitioners, do not have any right, title and interest for the land in question. Thus, persons, who have no right, title and interest in the land in question, power to have sold the land to the present petitioners. 26. At the best, it can be said that encroachers and/or persons who are in unauthorized possession of the government waste land have surreptitiously sold of the land to the petitioners. The possibility of original land owner having adopted this Modus Operandi may have tried to frustrate the provisions of the law. 27. I say and submit that even otherwise, the petitioners/alleged purchasers were required to be verified whether the alleged / purported sellers/vendors had no right, title or interest to transfer the said pieces of land. 28. I say and submit that by way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the proposed action in pursuance to the notifications dated 3- 4.5.2004 issued by the office of the answering deponent to the Taluka Mamlatdar, Rajkot. 29. I say and submit that no right much less any fundamental right and/or legal right of the petitioner is infringed. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the action against the offender, which is proposed to be taken by lodging Prosecution, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unfair, which can be stated to be in violation of any provision of law. Hence, it is stated that petition being de hors of merit, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 30. In view of what has been stated herein above, no relief much less any relief as prayed for deserves to be granted and the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.” 4. In the second Affidavit of Mr. N.D. Bhatt, Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar dated 02.04.2005, it was further stated that the criminal action against the persons who forged the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and on the basis of this, the action has been taken by the State for filing criminal complaint with Rajkot Taluka Police Station, Rajkot on 31.03.2005 and the same is also quoted below for ready reference: “1. I am filing the present Affidavit-in-Reply in compliance with Order passed by the Hon’ble Court dated 17.03.2005 whereby the answering respondent is directed to explain as to what action has been taken by the State for filing criminal complaint in connection with the letter of the Additional Collector dated 03.04/05.2004. It is also directed to explain as to why the action is not taken in this regard. Though it was brought to the notice of the government that the order of the Urban Land Tribunal is concocted and forged. On 24.07.1999 the competent authority (Additional Collector ULC) had sought the guidance from the answering respondent as to what action should be taken as regards the forged and concocted order of the Urban Land Tribunal, which was produced before it. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-I is the copy of the letter dated 24.07.1999. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the respondent no.2 the answering respondent vide its letter dated 24.09.1999 directed the respondent no.2 herein to take the necessary action along with registering criminal complaint in this behalf. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-II is the copy of the letter written by the answering respondent dated 24.09.1999. 3. It is submitted that vide a letter dated 22.03.2004 the State Government directed the respondent no.2 herein to report as regards the action taken by it pursuant to letter dated 24.09.1999. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-III is the copy of the letter dated 22.03.2000. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter the respondent no.2 herein vide its letter dated 03.04/05.2004 informed the State Government that since the order which was found forged and concocted is of Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad. It would be proper if the criminal prosecution is lodged by the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad and therefore requested the State Government to direct the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad to register a criminal complaint in this regard. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-IV is the copy of the letter dated 03.04/05.2004. In view of the aforesaid letter dated from respondent no.2 herein the Government vide its letter dated 25.05.2004 directed the Urban Land Tribunal to verify the fact as to whether any such order has been passed by it and if not then to initiate the proper criminal proceedings against all concerned in consultation with the respondent no.2 herein. In view of the aforesaid letter dated from respondent no.2 herein the Government vide its letter dated 25.05.2004 directed the Urban Land Tribunal to verify the fact as to whether any such order has been passed by it and if not then to initiate the proper criminal proceedings against all concerned in consultation with the respondent no.2 herein. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-V is the copy of the letter dated 25.05.2004. 4. It is submitted that in view of the letter written by the answering respondent, the respondent no.2 herein requested the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad to verify its records and initiate necessary criminal proceedings in the matter. On the record it appears that after the letter of the State Government dated 25.05.2004 there were several communications between the Urban Land tribunal, Ahmedabad as well respondent no.2 herein as regards filing criminal prosecution in the matter. Thereafter on 29.01.2005 asked the respondent no.2 herein to register the criminal complaint since the forged and concocted order of the Urban Land Tribunal was produced before it and therefore the cause of action had arisen at Rajkot. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-VI is the copy of the letter dated 29.01.2005. Pursuant to the said letter of Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad, the answering respondent also directed respondent no.2 herein to register the criminal complaint at the earliest. 5. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the answering respondent, respondent no.2 herein has registered criminal complaint being Cr. Register No.117 of 2005 with the Rajkot Taluka Police Station, Rajkot on 31.03.2005. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-VII is the copy of the FIR registered with Rajkot Taluka Police Station on 31.03.2005. 6. In view of what is stated herein above it is submitted that the answering respondent as well as other authorities of the State Government have taken appropriate action in accordance with law and have registered criminal complaint as regards the offence in question.” 5. No Rejoinder to the same has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner. 6. Mr. Vikram J. Thakor, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 Mr. Samir Kirtikumar Ravani, has submitted that his client Respondent No.5 has also become victim of the fraud played by one Mr. No Rejoinder to the same has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner. 6. Mr. Vikram J. Thakor, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 Mr. Samir Kirtikumar Ravani, has submitted that his client Respondent No.5 has also become victim of the fraud played by one Mr. Ketan Mirani who produced the forged order of the Tribunal dated 26.03.1999 and on the basis of which the property in question was sold to Respondent No.5 to further sold him to the Petitioner before this Court. He submitted that the stage of criminal proceedings is not readily known to him. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties present before this Court in today’s Video Conferencing meeting. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the present petition has no merit at all, as the Petitioners have not only approached this Court with unclean hands and therefore, they are not entitled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but also the sale in question of the land is clearly void under provisions of the ULC Act as the proceedings under provisions of the ULC Act had already been concluded on various dates as given in Respondents’ Affidavits quoted above, much before the repeal of law on 30.03.1999 and this Court in a series of decisions has already upheld such proceedings under provisions of the ULC Act in various cases, a reference to the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party, is given below for ready reference: (i) Heirs of Deceased Jethabhai Ishwarbhai vs. State of Gujarat – Letters Patent Appeal No.405 of 2007, decided on 22.01.2021; (ii) Dalwadi Muljibhai Mathurbhai Since deceased through Heirs vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary – Letters Patent Appeal No.555 of 2011, decided on 11.02.2021; (iii) Chandralal Mulchand Ambavani vs. State of Gujarat through – Letters Patent Appeal No.1411 of 2016, decided on 02.02.2021; (iv) Prabhatbhai Shivabhai Solanki through LRs vs. State of Gujarat – Letters Patent Appeal No.1281 of 2016, decided on 23.02.2021; (v) Ravjibhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. Competent Authority & Dy. Collector – Letters Patent Appeal No.941 of 2016, decided on 25.03.2021. 9. Collector – Letters Patent Appeal No.941 of 2016, decided on 25.03.2021. 9. In view of this, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition and the two sales in his favour out of surplus land were void and non est, as the whole of surplus land already stood vested in the State under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act and the Petitioners are not entitled to any right, title or interest in the portion of land alleged to have been purchased by them and they are already facing criminal prosecution in the matter along with others for forging of an order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In view of this, the present writ petition has no merit as liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties who are not present before this Court as of now and also to the Petitioners’ address given in the memo of petition. No costs.