( 1 ) ). This Special Civil Application has been filed against the order Annexure "f" dated 17-6-92 passed by the urban Land Tribunal and Secretary to the Government in Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat whereby the Appeal of the respondents against the order of the Competent Authority was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Competent Authority.

( 2 ) ). The land in question, which is Hindu Undivided Family property, is situated in village Harni, Taluka and district Vadodara. . A declaration with regard to the holding of this land had been filed under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The Competent Authority passed the order on 31-5-86 holding 7500 sq. mts. of land to be retainable and 14132 sq. mts of land to be in excess. Against this order, the Appeal was preferred before the Urban Land Tribunal on the ground that the material placed on record has not been taken into consideration and that the original declarant was entitled to retain more land and the Competent Authority had wrongly held 14132 sq. mts. Of land to be in excess. The petitioner-State of Gujarat has come with the case that the Appeal aganst the order dated 31-5-86 passed by the Competent Authority, was preferred after a delay of about two years and in the meantime, the Notification under Section 10 had been published on the official Gazette. Notification under Section 10 (3) had been published on 23-10-86 and the land stood vested in the Government. Requisite Notifications under Section 10 (5) and Section 19 (6) had also been issued on 30-1087 and 21-11-87 and without taking notice of the Notification issued under Section 10, the Urban Land Tribunal passed order on 17-6-92 remanding the matter back to the Competent Authority, while the possession had already been taken on 12-1-88. Thus, in short, the case of the petitioner-herein is that the Appeal preferred by the respondents was time barred and in the meantime the land stood vested in the Government and the possession had also been taken and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal was passed in a time barred Appeal and was oblivious of the Notification issued under Section 10 and the fact that the possession had already been taken over by the Government.

( 3 ) ). On Rule being issued by this Court, an affidavit-in-reply dated 8-2-95 was filed by one Shantibhai harmanbhai Patel, claiming to be the Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the respondents herein. Alongwith this reply, the copies of two Memos of Appeals, i. e. Appeal No. 106 of 1986 and Appeal No. 71 of 1988 have been filed. It has been stated as under: 31-5-85 - The Competent Authority passed by order. 30-6-86 - The Competent Authoritys order was communicated to the respondents. 4-9-86 - Appeal No. 106 of 1986 was preferred before the Tribunal thus, Appeal No. 106 of 1986 had been preferred within 30 days of the date on which the order was communicated. The Memo of Appeal No. 106 of 1986 is annexed as Annexure "i" to the affidavit-in-reply. It has been stated that this Appeal No. 106 of 1986 was filed within time, but the respondents were adviced (sic.) by another Advocate Shri K. N. Dave that there was some confusion in filing the aforesaid Appeal, which was registered as Appeal No. 106 of 1986 and, therefore, it will be better, in order to avoid any technical objection, to file another Appeal and indicate therein that the Appeal already filed by the respondents was pending and accordingly another Appeal was filed before the Urban Land Tribunal during the pendency of the earlier Appeal and another Appeal appears to have been filed in the year 1988 and the same was registered as Appeal No. 71 of 1988, copy of which has been annexed with the affidavit-in-reply as Annexure "ii". Both these Appeals were filed against the same impugned order dated 31-5-86 passed by the Competent Authority. Alongwith subsequent appeal No. 71 of 1988, an ap