( 1 ) ). This Spcial civil Application is directed against the order dated 24/1/94 passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

( 2 ) ). Petitioners herein filled Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the Act with regard to the holding of the land. These forms were dealt with by the competent authority and the competent authority, after taking into consideration and after satisfying itself with regard to the portions of the land which could not be included in the exrcise of computing the excess land held by each of the petitioner separately, decided the case of both the petitioners by common order holding that the petitioner Nargis held 2015 sq mts of land in excess and Saroj held 1925 sq mts of land in excess. The petitioners were satisfied with the order passed by the competent authority, but the government in the Revenue Department took up the matter suo motu under Section 34 of the Act and passed impugned order dated 24/1/94 holding that the petitioners held excess land beyond the ceiling limits to the extent of 11285 sq mts and that the land was being held jointly by two petitioners, whoi are real sisters.

( 3 ) ). Apart from other grievances, which have been raised against the impugned order passed in revision, it has argued by learned cousel for the petitioners that no notices under section 34 of the Act before passing impuged order, were served upon the petitioners, whereas it has been clearly provided in Section 34 that no order under Section 34 shall be made expect after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the competent authority had passed the order on 28-11-91, in which details had been oset out as to why the order passed by the competent authority was sought to be revised. In this span of more thatn 5 years the petitioners had shifted their residence from 665 Band view opp. Five Graden, Lady Jahangir Road. Parsi colony, Dadar Bombay to Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Boroda and the petitioners had shifted their residence perior to the date of the issue of the notice under Section 34 and it has been submitted that the notices under Section 34 had not been served upon the petitioners.

( 4 ) ). Neither any return has benn filed on behalf of the respondents nor any document whatsoever has been placed on record. The Learned A. G. P. has orally Under Section 34 clould be received by the petitioners, although it was sent at the Bombay address, there is no reason to beliebe that the notices might not have been served upon the petitioners on account of the change in the address and therefore, it has been argued by the Learned Asstt. Govt. pleader that, when it is mentioned in the impugned order that notices had been sent on 25-11-91, there is no reason to disbelieve this statement made in the body of the impugned order dated 2-1-94. In this view of the matter it is urged that there is no fault on the part of the concerned authorities and it mist be presumed that, if the final order could be served, the notices must also have been served when they were issued in 1991. On querry being made, as to whether the copy of the order, which has been placed on record by the poetitioners, is a certified bipy obtained by them or it is a copy served ipon them as sent by the Deprtment. Mr Urazee, Learned A. G. P. emphasised and stressed, without placing any material whatsoever, that the zerox copy of the order, which has been placed on record has been prepated from the copy which was sent by the Deopartment and it is not a certified copy. Had it been a certified copy, there is tick against the name and Bombay address of the petitioners and, therefore, it must be taken that this order was duly served upon them at Bombay address. In support of this order was duly served upon them at Bombay a