( 1 ) ARTICLE 300a of the Constitution of India prohibits acquisition of any property of any person without any authority of law. Unfortunately, that salutary constitutional provision has come to be contravened in the instant case. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is that the share of their father in one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 972/2 (Part) situated at village Vastral (the disputed land for convenience) within the urban agglomeration of Ahmedabad has been declared surplus under the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the act for brief) without affording any opportunity of hearing to them or to their deceased predecessor-in-title.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land in its entirety admeasures 12 acres. It was purchased by the deceased predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, named, Mulchandbhai Bapubhai Patel (the deceased for convenience) along with Jasubhai Kasibhai Patel, Narottamdas Motidas patel and Somabhai Magandas Patel some time in 1967. It appears that the area of the disputed land was incorrectly mentioned therein. Thereupon by a deed of rectification executed on 9th October 1975, the area of the disputed land in the aforesaid sale deed came to be corrected. Copies of the aforesaid sale deed and the aforesaid rectification deed are collectively at Annexure-B to this petition. It transpires thereform that the share of the deceased therein was 33%, the share of jasubhai Kasibhai Patel was also 33% and the share of the remaining two coowners was 17% each. On coming into force of the Act, the deceased filed his declaration in the prescribed form under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act on 17th August 1976. Strangely enough, it has admittedly remained unprocessed so far. Shri Dave for the respondents on instructions states that after demise of the deceased the present petitioners made an application for exemption under Sec. 20 (1) of the Act some time in 1984. It remained pending with the State Government till 1992 and that was the reason why the declaration filed by the deceased under Sec. 6 (1) of the act remained unprocessed. Shri Dave for the respondents states on instructions that the aforesaid application for exemption made by the petitioners has come to be rejected by the State Government some time in 1992. Shri Dave has, however, not been able to explain why the declaration filed by the deceased under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act remained unprocessed for as many as eight years. Surprisingly enough, another co-owner of the disputed land, named, Jasubhai Kasibhai Patel, also filed his declaration in the prescribed form under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act on 14th September 1976. In that declaration, the declarant showed the holding of the disputed land to be with other co-owners. Pursuant thereto, a draft statement was prepared and caused to be served to the said declarant some time on or about 28th December 1982. He filed his objections thereto. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 5th July 1984 pursuant to the declaration in the prescribed form made by said jasubhai Kasibhai Patel under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act, the Competent Authority at ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) declared the holding of that declarant to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 61,446 square metres and the excess was declared surplus. The surplus declared thereunder included the disputed land in its entirety. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. Pursuant thereto, a notification under sec. 10 (3) of the Act came to be issued and published in due course and a notice under Sec. 10 (5) thereof also came to be issued. Pursuant thereto, an attempt to take possession of the disputed land inter alia from the petitioners was made and at that stage the petitioners came to know that their share in the disputed land was declared surplus without affording any opportunity of hearing to them and without getting processed th