( 1 ) WHETHER the respondent State of Gujarat could exercise revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act for short) when an appeal against the same order of the Competent Authority is preferred and decided, and if yes, whether the respondent State of Gujarat should be permitted to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 34 after a lapse of four years in view of the equities created in favour of the petitioner, are the main questions which have emerged for examination, interpretation and adjudication in this petition under Art. 226/227 of the constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid questions have arisen in the background of the following factual acenario. The petitioner No. 1 Bai Dhani Hira had filed form No. 1 under Sec. 6 (1) of the ulc Act. It was filed on 8. 10. 90 before the Competent Authority in which it was declared that she is the holder of land situated at Moje Gyaspur, Taluka City District ahmedabad bearing survey No. 228 admeasuring about 12343 sq. mtrs. The Competent authority by his order dated 25. 3. 91 assessed the total holding of the petitioner No. 1 dhaniben to the extent of 12300 sq. mtrs. and treated the land as ancestral property and granted 13 units. Therefore, there was excess vacant land.

( 3 ) THE husband of the petitioner No. 1, Moti Hira had expired on or around 1939-40 and by mutation entry No. 762 dated 9. 11. 45 in the record of village form No. 6, the name of the petitioner No. 1 was entered as heir of the deceased Moti Hira. the disputed land is shown as new tenure land in village form No. 7 and \2. The Competent Authority accepted the case that the property was an uncestral one and granted 13 units.

( 4 ) THE order of the Competent Authority came to be chalk ed by a third party by filing an appeal No. 154/93 under Sec. 33 of the ULC Act. Before the Urban Land tribunal (ULC Tribunal), admittedly, the petitioners were not parties. The ULC Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 14. 10. 93. The Tribunal held that the third party who has filed appeal has no right, title or interest in the land and is not competent to file an appeal.

( 5 ) THE respondent State of Gujarat, thereafter issued show cause notice in February 1995 exercising revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the ULC Act which is questioned by the petitioners by way of filing the petition on hand. Thus the petition is filed against the show cause notice contending that the respondent State of Gujarat has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in purported exercise of revisional powers under Sec. 34 of the ulc Act when an appeal had been preferred and decided.

( 6 ) THE learened counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions in this petition : (1) That the respondent State of Gujarat has no power and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Sec. 34 of the ULC Act after appeal under Sec. 33 of the ulc Act is filed and decided by the ULC Tribunal; (2) That there is unexplained and unreasonable delay of about more than 4 years on the part of the respondent State of Gujarat in initiating the proceedings of revision under Sec. 34 of the Act; (3) That the respondent has issued show cause notice exercising powers under sec. 34 of the ULC Act after the petitioners have executed agreement to sell in favour of the Co-operative Housing Society and after spending huge amount of Rs. 37 lacs and the resultant construction of 79 tenements on the land in dispute. The aforesaid contentions are challenged and traversed by the learned Assistant government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. He has also raised the following contentions: (1) That the respondent State has power and jurisdiction to initiate revisional proceedings under Sec. 34 of the ULC Act in the present case; (2) That there is no unexplained and unreasonable delay in initiating the proceedings under Sec. 34 of the ULC Act; (3) That there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the constru