( 1 ) IN these three petitions the common question which requires determination is whether the Urban Land Tribunal constituted under sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Urban Land Ceiling Act has jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default or whether the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal can dismiss the appeal for default.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 2635 of 1986 the Additional Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government. Revenue Department Ahmedabad by the order dated 15/03/1986 dismissed the Appeal No. APL/ul/rajkot-138/1983 filed under sec. 32 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on the ground that when the appeal was called out neither the appellants nor their advocate were present. Restoration application was filed by the petitioner. In the said application number of grounds for restoration were given. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by holding that there was no sufficient ground shown for re-admitting the appeal.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 2660 of 1986 the same Tribunal by the order dated 15/03/1986 dismissed the Appeal No. APL/ul/ RAJKOT-14/1983 as neither the appellants nor their advocate remained present at the hearing of the appeal. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners advocate had sent a telegram requesting the Tribunal to adjourn the matter. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application dated 19/ 20/03/1986 requesting the Tribunal to restore the appeal by pointing out various grounds for restoration. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by holding that no sufficient cause was shown for re-admitting the appeal. It be noted that no hearing was given to the petitioners before dismissing the restoration application.

( 4 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 1702 of 1986 against the judgment and order dated 18th January 198g passed by the same Tribunal in the Appeal No. APL/ul/surat-107/1983. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant was absent when the appeal was called out for hearing and no application for adjournment of hearing was received. The Tribunal thereafter relied upon Order 41 Rule 11 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay order. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that telegram was sent on 17-1-1986 requesting the Tribunal to adjourn the matter.

( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid orders the petitioners have filed these Special Civil Applications.

( 6 ) AS the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for default the learned advocates for both the sides requested that the hearing of the matters be expedited as it was a pure question of law. All the three Special Civil Applications are therefore taken up for hearing to-day.

( 7 ) THE learned advocates for the petitioners vehemently submitted that there is no provision in the Urban Land Ceiling Act which empowers the Tribunal exercising power under sec. 33 of the Act to dismiss the appeal for default and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for non-appearance of the parties. It is the duty of the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits even in absence of parties or their advocates. The proceeding before the Tribunal is in the nature of inquisitorial inquiry. In my view this contention of the learned advocates deserves to be accepted. For this purpose it would be worth-while to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The relevant part of sec. 12 reads as udder:12 (1) The State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette constitute on or more Urban Land Tribunal or Tribunals (2) xx xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx xx (4) If any person is aggrieved by an order of the competent authority under sec 11 he may within thirty days of she date on Which the order is communicated to him prefer an appeal to the Tribunal