JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. In this intra-court appeal, order dated 06.03.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 has been challenged, whereunder writ application filed by the appellant seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to the respondent authorities to release land bearing survey no. 110/1, final plot nos. 82 and 85 of T.P. Scheme No. 15 (Fulpada) at Mouje Fulpada, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat from the purview of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short hereinafter referred to as “ULC Act”) came to be rejected. 2. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this appeal, can be crystallized as under: 2.1 Petitioner claiming to be the owner and occupier of land bearing Survey No. 110/1 was visited with an order passed under the ULC Act after the necessary notification under the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 came to be issued on 11.01.1990 followed by notification under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the ULC Act on 17.12.1990. It is thereafter petitioner submitted an application for sanction of the scheme under section 21 of the ULC Act. 2.2 On an order being passed declaring excess land and questioning the same, petitioner approached the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2761 of 1995 contending that despite pendency of the application filed under Sub-Section (1) of section 21, the authorities have proceeded to issue notification under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10. The authorities were directed to consider the application filed under section 21 of the Act and till disposal of the said application, the order of operation of notification issued under section 10(3) of ULC Act came to be stayed. Subsequently, the application filed under section 21 of the ULC Act was rejected on 17.12.1997, resulting in challenge being made to the said order in Special Civil Application No. 11845 of 2002, which came to be rejected on 17.02.2005 and the same was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1255 of 2011 vide order dated 10.04.2014 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08.08.2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 18133 of 2014. Petitioner did not raise his little finger after disposal of the matter by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08.08.2014, for six years, in other words, petitioner accepted the said order which had reached finality and out of blue as though waking up from deep coma, filed a Special Civil Application in 2020 in Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 by taking a cue from the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram, 2013 (4) SCC 280 , whereunder the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that mere vesting of land under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act would not confer any right on the State Government to have a de facto possession on vacant land unless there has been voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999 namely the date on which the ULC Act 1976 came to be repealed by Act 1999. In this background, it came to be held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that State has to establish that there has been voluntary surrender of vacant land or delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 or forcible dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 of ULC Act. It was also held that on failure to establish any of the aforesaid situation, the land owner or holder can claim benefit of section 4 of Repeal Act of 1999 namely the provision which contained that the land had not stood vested with the State and thereby seek for delivery of possession of the land which is deemed to have been continued with the owner of the land. 2.3 Thus, attempting to revive a dead cause of action, a representation came to be submitted on 20.02.2019 by the petitioner to the competent authority under the ULC Act by drawing attention of the authority to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Ram’s Case (supra), and requesting thereunder that subject land be released in favour of petitioner. 2.3 Thus, attempting to revive a dead cause of action, a representation came to be submitted on 20.02.2019 by the petitioner to the competent authority under the ULC Act by drawing attention of the authority to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Ram’s Case (supra), and requesting thereunder that subject land be released in favour of petitioner. The thrust of contentions raised before the authorities and the grounds urged in the Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 was in sum and substance that physical possession of the subject property was never taken and there is no proper compliance of Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 of the Act of 1976 and hence, Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 be allowed by directing the respondent authorities to deliver possession of subject land. 2.4 Learned Single Judge by impugned order has dismissed the petition on overall consideration of the material placed on record and after taking note of the observations made in the earlier round of litigation. Hence, this Appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Himanshu Desai, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Ms. Shrunjal Shah along with Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGPs appearing for State. 4. It is contention of Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner – appellant that learned Single Judge ignored the fact that appellant is still in possession of the subject land namely de facto possession and not de jure possession and as such, principles laid down in Hari Ram’s Case (Supra) are squarely applicable to the facts on hand. He would also contend that there has been non-compliance of the mandate of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act and compensation as envisaged under section 11 of the Act has not been paid and as such question of there being any delay or laches on the part of appellant, would not arise. By reiterating grounds urged before learned Single Judge, he has prayed for allowing the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. By reiterating grounds urged before learned Single Judge, he has prayed for allowing the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Per contra, learned AGPs appearing for the State have supported the order of the learned Single Judge and by placing heavy reliance on the original records tendered before this Court, they have reiterated the contentions raised in the reply-statement and have also drawn the attention of the Court to the notice issued under section 10(5) to the appellant herein, which has been received by her and the original postal acknowledgment evidencing this fact has been brought to our notice to contend that after following due procedure prescribed under ULC Act, 1976, possession of the subject property had been taken and as such they have prayed for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of record, we are of the considered view that it would be apt and appropriate to note the observations made by the Coordinate Bench as well as the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation, whereunder the very same appellant had challenged the order dated 17.12.1997 rejecting the application filed under section 21 of the Act 1976. This order which was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 11845 of 2002 was dismissed on 17.02.2005. The observations made by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application of appellant is worthy to be noted and it is to the following effect: “5.1 As stated hereinabove, Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act came to be issued on 11.1.1990. After the land in question came to be declared as surplus land, the Notification under Section 10(5) of the Act came to be issued on 17.12.1990. An application under Section 21 of the Act came to be submitted on 16th March 1991 and thereafter the petitioner preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 2761 of 1995, in which, as stated hereinabove, the fact with regard to the Notification issued on 17.12.1990 under Section 10(5) of the Act was not pointed out to this Court. Thereafter the order came to be passed on 17.12.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner for the scheme under Section 21 of the Act. Thereafter the order came to be passed on 17.12.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner for the scheme under Section 21 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the said order has not been served upon the petitioner by RPAD, though it is the case of the respondent that the said order has been served upon the respondent by RPAD and they have produced Outward Register showing that the same was sent to the petitioner. Apart from the said fact that the notice with regard to taking over the possession came to be issued and served upon the petitioner on 24th March 1998 and the possession has been taken over on 16th April 1998, if the notice was served upon the petitioner with regard to taking over possession on 24th March 1998 and the same is not disputed then, one is required to consider the conduct of the petitioner. The natural conduct of the petitioner and any person would be to inquire from the authority immediately on receipt of the said notice as to what happened to his application under Section 21 of the Act. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served upon the order dated 17.12.1997 passed under Section 21 of the Act and the application under Section 21 of the Act was pending, then as soon as service of the notice dated 24th March 1998 with regard to taking over of possession, the petitioner immediately should have and could have inquired as to what happened to his application under Section 21 of the Act, which the petitioner has not done. Having not done so and considering the fact that the petitioner was sent the order by Registered Post A.D. the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order dated 17.12.1997 passed under Section 21 of the Act after a period of 5 years, more particularly, when the Gujarat Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 came to be repealed thereafter. It is also required to be noted that even there is an illegal and unauthorised construction on the land in question, which is not disputed by the petitioner. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the said construction is not put up by the petitioner, but somebody else has put up the construction. It is also required to be noted that even there is an illegal and unauthorised construction on the land in question, which is not disputed by the petitioner. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the said construction is not put up by the petitioner, but somebody else has put up the construction. Shri Panchal, has disputed the factum of taking over possession in 1998 by submitting that the respondents have not produced any Panchnama by showing that the possession has been taken over not. On one hand, the petitioner has submitted that the possession has already been taken over in the year 1998 on 16th April, and on the other hand the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has not taken over the possession. These are word against word and being disputed questions of facts the same cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when necessary entry being Entry No. 2118 is already mutated on 30th July 1999 in the Record of Rights, which also came to be challenged by the petitioner only in the year 2.6.2001.” 7. This order came to be affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 426 of 2005 by Coordinate Bench by observing thus: “A perusal of order dated 17.12.1997 shows that it contains a specific reference to Notifications dated 11.1.1990 and 17.12.1990 issued under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act respectively. It is also borne out from the record that possession of the excess land had been taken over on 16.4.1998 after issuing the notice, which was duly served on the respondent. In view of these undisputed facts, it is not possible to find any fault with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition filed by the appellant in 2002 for quashing order dated 17.12.1997 was highly belated. We are further of the view that after coming into force of the Repeal Act in 1999, it is not open to the appellant to question the action of the respondents to take over the possession of the excess land more so because the same had been entered in the name of the State Government vide mutation entry no. 2188 dated 30th July, 1999 which was not challenged within reasonable time.” 8. 2188 dated 30th July, 1999 which was not challenged within reasonable time.” 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, Special Leave to Appeal in Petition (C) No. 25194 of 2005 was preferred by this very appellant and the Hon’ble Apex Court on 21.07.2011 had set aside the order of Division Bench and remanded the matter back to this Court for disposal afresh. On such order of remand being passed, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 426 of 2005 was re-numbered as Letters Patent Appeal No. 1255 of 2011 came to be dismissed on the ground of there being delay. This order dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Division Bench was challenged before Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No. 18133 of 2014, which was dismissed and the order of the Division Bench dated 10.04.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1255 of 2011 came to be affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08.08.2014. 9. At this juncture, it would be apt and appropriate to extract the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench while disposing of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1255 of 2011 on 10.04.2014, which is to the following effect: “8. So far as the contention of learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant that the respondents have not followed due process of law in taking over the possession of the land in question and the same is taken ex-parte is concerned, from the material on record more particular Annexure-L-I, letter dated 24.03.1998 issued by the competent authority to the appellant, the contention is found without merit. In the said letter, it has been informed to the appellant to remain present in the site for taking over the possession and the next date was fixed on 16.04.1998 for taking over the possession. The said letter was also received by the appellant on 30.03.1998. Thereafter, on 16.04.1998 when the competent authority went to the place for taking over the possession of the land, neither appellant nor any of his representative had remained present at the said place. Therefore, the possession was taken over in presence of the witnesses and panchnama was executed, which is signed by the witnesses. 11. Thereafter, on 16.04.1998 when the competent authority went to the place for taking over the possession of the land, neither appellant nor any of his representative had remained present at the said place. Therefore, the possession was taken over in presence of the witnesses and panchnama was executed, which is signed by the witnesses. 11. Considering the facts of this case and also considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the abovequoted judgments, we are of the view that the contention of learned senior advocate for the appellant that the possession of the land was taken over without following the due process of law is erroneous. Even the appellant has been failed to establish that there was mala-fide intention on the part of the respondent authority in taking over the possession.” 10. Thus, observations made by the Coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1255 of 2011 having been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal Petition No. 18133 of 2014, it would not lie in the mouth of appellant to re-agitate the same issue before this Court. On this short ground itself, Special Civil Application ought to have been dismissed as also the present Letters Patent Appeal. 11. Be that as it may. In order to satisfy ourselves that there was due compliance of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram (supra), we called upon the learned Government Advocate to make available the original records. The original records have been accordingly tendered before this Court and on perusal of the same, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside contention raised by the appellant. We say so, for the simple reason that records on hand would clearly indicate that subsequent to the issuance of notification under section 10(3), notice under section 10(5) was issued on 17.12.1991, which notice had been despatched by registered post acknowledgment due and same has been received and duly acknowledged by the daughter of the first appellant herein. Pursuant to which, a representation came to be submitted on 21.02.1992 by the first appellant i.e. first writ applicant herein and subsequently respondent authorities have issued notice on 24.03.1998 for taking over possession of the subject property as appellant had not delivered the same inspite of demand. Pursuant to which, a representation came to be submitted on 21.02.1992 by the first appellant i.e. first writ applicant herein and subsequently respondent authorities have issued notice on 24.03.1998 for taking over possession of the subject property as appellant had not delivered the same inspite of demand. It has been clearly indicated therein that authorities would be visiting the subject land for taking physical possession on 16.04.1998. This has been duly acknowledged by the first writ applicant as is evident from the acknowledgment found in the original record at page No. 461. This was also perused in the open Court by the learned counsel Shri Himanshu Desai and he fairly admitted that LTI found on the said acknowledgment is that of first appellant. Pursuant to the same, possession of subject property was taken over on 16.04.1998 as per the panchnama found at Page No. 515 of the original records which is also accompanied by a sketch which indicate the extent of vacant land as determined under the issuance of notification under section 10(3) of the ULC Act having been taken over. These facts when cumulatively read would lead us to irresistible conclusion that possession of the land was taken in due compliance of Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 of ULC Act. As such, petitioner would not be entitled to re-agitate the said issue which had also reached finality. Infact appellant – writ applicant ought to have been fair to the Court as well as to the State and its instrumentalities. But on the other hand, appellant is indulging in re-agitating the issue which has reached finality by filing petition after petition and re-agitating the same issue namely the issue relating to possession having not been taken. 12. Appellants are also guilty of delay and laches. When the issue relating to possession had been urged in first round of litigation as already noticed herein above and findings recorded by this Court had been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court while disposing of the Special Leave to Petition (C) No. 25194 of 2005 on 02.01.2006, they could not have re-agitated the said issue by attempting to cling to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Ram’s case (supra). In other words, having not explained the cause for delay, they cannot be allowed to contend that on account of subsequent application or representation having been submitted by the petitioner, the cause of action stood revived. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director and Another vs. K. Thangappan and Another, 2006 (4) SCC 322, has clearly held that mere making representation to the authorities concerned cannot justify a belated approach. Though a finding had been recorded by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier round of litigation regarding possession, in the present Special Civil Application consciously petitioner had made an assertion and statement on oath that possession of subject property has not been taken over and petitioner continued to be in possession of the subject land vide paragraph 2.3 of the Special Civil Application i.e. Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 and thereby there is misstatement on oath. Infact relief which has been sought for before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020, when compared to the relief that was sought for in earlier round of litigation, it would not detain us for too long to hold that they are same, identical and replica. For the sake of convenience and immediate reference, we have juxta positioned, the prayers sought for in these two application, which are to the following effects: Prayers sought for in Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 Prayers sought for in Special Civil Application No. 11845 of 2002 7. (A) that the Honourable Court be pleased a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the release the land bearing Survey No. 110/1, Final Plot Nos. 82 and 85 of T.P. Scheme No. 15 (Fulpada) at Mouje Fulpada, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from the provisions of Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and mutate the revenue record accordingly. To quash and set aside the entry No. 2188 in the revenue record, and to direct the City Talati, Surat to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. 13. To quash and set aside the entry No. 2188 in the revenue record, and to direct the City Talati, Surat to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. 13. Thus, petitioner being conscious of these facts, yet have been re-agitating the said issue again and again which not only requires to be deprecated but petitioner is also required to be mulcted with costs. 14. For reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass following: (i) Appeal is DISMISSED with costs which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- payable by appellant to respondents within an outer limit of six weeks, failing which the respondents would be liberty to recover the same from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. (ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5345 of 2020 is hereby affirmed. (iii) Pending applications, if any, stands consigned to records.