( 1 ) SPECIAL Civil Application Nos. 6982 of 1999 and 10017 of 1999 filed at the instance of the petitioners were heard together and were disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 17. 2. 2000 against which the present appeals are preferred. The facts giving rise to these appeals are required to be narrated which are as under. Appellants of these appeals are referred to as `the petitioners.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 6982 of 1999 the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction restraining the respondent Corporation from demolishing the construction put up in the land bearing Survey Nos. 470/1 and 472 of Katargam, Taluka: Choryasi, District Surat.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 10017 of 1999 the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the order passed by the respondent Corporation on 19. 11. 1999 and the order, if any, passed on 29. 10. 1999 in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 470/1 and 472 of village Katargam (to be precise plot Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Keshavpark, Ved Road, Surat) are illegal and in violation of Section 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and further prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 19. 11. 1999 and any order passed on 29. 10. 1999 rejecting the development plan submitted by the petitioners on 7. 8. 1999 in respect of the aforesaid lands.

( 4 ) SUFFICE it to say that the dispute between the parties is whether the construction work carried out by the petitioners is in accordance with law or not. Before the learned Single Judge only three questions were raised which are as under:- (A) that the construction in question is not offending and the same can be regularised by the Corporation by charging appropriate penalty. (B) that notice under Section 260 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) could not have been issued as the Town Planning Scheme is applicable for the area in question. (C) that the plans submitted by the petitioners have not been dealt with by the Corporation and therefore, plans deemed to have been sanctioned.

( 5 ) FROM the contents of the petition it transpires that five petitioners approached this court in respect of construction carried out in sub-plot Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of final plot No. 35 situated at Ved Road, Surat.

( 6 ) THE original owner of the land in question submitted a Scheme under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for the purpose of providing houses to the weaker sections of the society. Reading the order vide Annexure-A to the petition, it appears that permission was granted to carry out construction by the Corporation. Reading the said order, which is known as "raja chitty" it appears that permission was granted to carry out construction as per the plans submitted for Survey Nos. 470/1 and 472 situated in Katargam. It is interesting to note that this permission was in favour of Mohanbhai Kuberbhai Patel and others but not in favour of the petitioners. There are no details on the record of the case to indicate that permission under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was granted and thereafter houses were constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the competent authority. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether the land in question remained with the owners in view of the permission granted by the competent authority or not. It is clear that an application was made under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act so as to see that the land is not considered as excess land by the holder under the provisions of the