( 1 ) AS all these Special Civil Applications proceed on the same facts and grounds of challenge to the impugned orders they are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) LEADING arguments in these matters are being advanced by Ms. Vasuben P. Shah, Senior Advocate with respect to the Special Civil Application No. 8102 of 1995, and as such, the facts are being taken from the aforesaid Special Civil application for the purpose of deciding these Special Civil Applications.

( 3 ) ON 26th September, 1997, at one point of time, this Court thought to implead the Airport Authority of India as a respondent herein but the Counsel for the petitioners has not taken the notice of the said authority for direct service. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, I am satisfied that now this order is not required to be carried out.

( 4 ) ONE Dahyabhai Vestabhai was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 378/1 situated at village Dumas. The holder of the aforesaid land divided it into 48 sub-plots. Thereafter he applied for obtaining permission to sell the sub-plots for making use thereof for non-agricultural purpose to the respondent No. 3 under s. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1948" ). The respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 29th april, 1967 granted the permission to the holder of the land aforesaid with certain conditions inter alia to make the use of sub-plots for non-agricultural purpose by transferee within two years from the date of the order. On 20th May, 1967 the owner aforesaid sold the sub-plots to 48 persons including the petitioner in this present special Civil Application by registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that under the Town Planning Scheme which has been published on 23rd December, 1969, the land in question was put under reservation for the purpose of extension of aerodrome for civil aviation and transport. After the purchase of the plot in question by the petitioners they have taken the necessary steps for extension of the timelimit by the respondent No. 3 for making non-agricultural use thereof by making applications. They have also moved an application under the Bombay Land Revenue code for N. A. permission.

( 5 ) THE Taluka Development Officer concerned vide its order dated 18th June, 1971 declined to grant N. A. permission to the petitioners. They preferred an appeal against the said order but that appeal has also been dismissed. Under the letter of the Government dated 20th April, 1981, the State Government issued direction treating the permission to sell all the sub-plots to the petitioners as deemed to have been automatically cancelled. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter of the Government, the concerned Mamlatdar ordered for entering the name of the original owner in the revenue record in respect of the land in dispute. This order was stated to be passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. After purchase of this land by the petitioners their names have been entered in the revenue record in the year 1969-70 and till then their names were continued in the revenue record. The Mamlatdar concerned ultimately vide its order dated 21st October, 1993 entered the name of the original owner in the revenue record. Hence, these Special civil Applications.

( 6 ) MANIFOLD contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in these Special Civil Applications but I do not consider it to be necessary to advert to all those contentions as I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be considered by the High Power Committee of the State Government after hearing the parties concerned.

( 7 ) IT is understandable that in the Town Planning Scheme land may be reserved for the public purposes and the reservation of the land in dispute for the purpose of extension of aerodrome for civil aviation and transport may be termed as a publi