JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court which suo motu registered a writ petition on the basis of the copies of documents purported to have been received from one Piyush Soni. It was alleged that there were several irregularities and illegalities in connection with the allotment of land to Sumangalam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The High Court entertained several other civil applications and passed the impugned judgment inter alia holding that there were several irregularities and illegalities committed in the allotment of land. The judgment of the High Court in SCA No. 10640 of 2000 is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Senior counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is relevant to note that since valuation of the property allotted was one of the major grounds which weighed with the High Court while dealing with the matter, therefore, on the suggestion of counsel for the parties, Dr. Roshan H. Namavati, an approved valuer was asked to determine the market value of the properties in question as on the date of allotment i.e. on 1.3.1990. It appears that High Court found that one Mr. H.K. Khan has disposed of a plot for Rs.22,00,000/-. According to the High Court same was the market price at which the plot in question could have been transferred by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (in short the AUDA) by applying the principle of 10% appreciation in market value. Calculated on that basis the High Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of the price of land allotted to Mr. H.K. Khan the allotment was made at an unreasonable rate.

3. Dr. Roshan H. Namavati has valued that property in question as follows:

"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The results obtained by me based on my inspection of properties under valuation as well as instances, the fair market value of F.P. No. 694, 695, 696 as on 1-3-1990 will be:

Based on H.K. Khans (F.P.695/= Rs. 575/-17) sale of a developed small p.s.mt.commercial plot.

Based on instances of 3 residential= Rs. 540/- plots in the the Bodakdev Scheme.p.s.mt.

Based on instances of F.P. 109 = Rs. 480/- of Thaltej T.P. Scheme which is p.s.mt.diagonally opposite to F.P. 694, 695 and 696.

In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that fair market value of F.P. 694, 695 and 696 in an undeveloped stage, with encroachment, having residential as also commercial potential requiring infrastructure, earth file as on 1.3.1990 will be 20,494 x Rs.540/- P.s.mt. = Rs.1,10,66,760/-"

4. The stand of the appellants is unanimous to the extent that they have all highlighted that the value at which transfer has been made is in no way less than the market price. Mode by which the High Court has made the valuation has practically no basis.

5. Broadly the issues addressed by the High Court in the impugned judgment are: (the parties are described as per their position in the High Court)

1.Mix-up of identities between Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4.

2.Impersonation by the office bearers of Respondent No.2 as those of Respondent No. 4.

6. Suppression before the High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 3082 and 3781 of 1991 culminating in the judgment dated 24.09.1991 of the fact that two other societies being Respondent nos. 2 and 3 existed and the land had been allotted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) to Respondent No.2 and not Respondent No. 4

7. It may be noted that Respondent No.2 was called Sumangalam Cooperative Housing Society, Gandhi Nagar bearing registration No.9675 which was cancelled on 9.12.1996.

8. Respondent No.3 was called New Sumangal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Taluka Daskroy bearing registration No.13338 which also cancelled on 9.12.1996.

Respondent No.4 is called Sumangalam Cooperative Housing Society, Bodakdev and bears registration No.1492.

9. Background facts vis-a-vis Respondent