( 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 Special Civil Application No. 6377 of 1987 (the first petition for convenience ). They were also thereupon served with the aforesaid show-cause notice issued on 2nd November 1985 under Section 34 of the Act. After hearing the parties by the order passed by and on behalf of the respondents on 17th July 1987 the order passed by the competent authority on 25th March 1980 was quashed and set aside and the holding of the petitioner of the second petition was declared to be surplus by 3226 sq. mts. Its copy is at Annexure A to each petition. The petitioners of both the petitions were aggrieved by the said order. They have therefore moved this Court by means of their respective petitions under Article 237 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

( 3 ) ). Shri Dave for the respondent is right in his submission that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. At this stage Shri Shah for the petitioners prays for its conversion into the one under Article 226 thereof. That request made by Shri Shah for the petitioners is accepted and this petition is treated as the one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the grievance of the petitioners in each petition is contravention of their fundamental right inter alia under Article 14 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are not required to pay any deficit court fees.

( 4 ) THE grievance voiced by the petitioners in these petitions against the order at Annexure At this petition is to the effect that the revisional powers under Section 34 of the Act have been exercised after unreasonable time and it has caused great prejudice to the petitioner in as much as the petitioners of the first petition have purchased certain lands from the petitioner of the second petition and they have raised construction thereon. According to the petitioners if the petitioners had known that the order of the competent authority was liable to revision within reasonable time. they might not have gone for the transaction with respect to the subject-matter of the first petition. As against his Shri Dave for the respondent in each case has urged that some lapse of lime however unreasonable would not invalidate the exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Act in view of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Haresh Kantilal Vora v. Competent Authority and Additional Collector Rajkot and Another reported in 1992 (2) G. L. H. at page 424

( 5 ) IN this connection a reference deserves to be made to the ruling of this Court in the case of Jayantilal K Shah v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 1994 (2) G. C. D. 83 (Gujarat ). In that case the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Haresh Kantilal (supra) was considered and it has