( 1 ) ). The order passed by and on behalf of the respondents on 17th July 1987 is under challenge in both these petitions. Common question of law and fact are found arising in both these petitions. I have therefore thought it fit to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment of mine.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6630 of 1987 (the second petition for convenience) filed his declaration under prescribed form under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to its holding within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. By his order passed on 25 March 1980 the competent authority of Rajkot came to the conclusion that the holding of the declarant was not in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. It appears to have come to the notice of the concerned officer of the State Government. He appears to have found it not according to law. Its suo motu revision under Section 34 of the Act was contemplated. A show-cause notice was issued to the declaration on 2 November 1985. It appears that in the meantime certain parcels of land came to be transferred to the petitioners of S