( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner challenges the order dated 28th September, 1990 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government in Appeal No. Ahmedabad-557 of 1988 as well as the order dated 19th November, 1998 passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad in Case No. ULC/u-1/ba-Fi/202.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner had submitted Form No. 1 under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("the Act") before the Competent Authority on 15th September, 1976 declaring the following lands to be part of his holding: (1) Land admeasuring 2428 sq. mts. of survey No. 96/2 of village Bagefirdose and; (2) Land admeasuring 5969 sq. mts. of survey No. 102/1/2 of village Bagefirdose.

( 3 ) THE competent authority processed the aforesaid Form No. 1 submitted by the petitioner. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the evidence and the record of the case, the competent authority passed the impugned order dated 29th September, 1988 holding that the lands of Survey No. 102/1/2 of village Bagefirdose were not of the ownership of the petitioner and as such could not be considered to be part of his holding. It was further held that the petitioner"s holding comprised of 2428 sq. mts. of land of survey No. 96/2 of village Bagefirdose out of which he was entitled to retain 1000 sq. mts. and accordingly the remaining 1428 sq. mts. of land was declared as excess vacant.

( 4 ) THE petitioner carried the matter in appeal under the provisions of section 33 of the Act before the Urban Lands Tribunal who by the impugned order dated 28th September, 1990 negatived the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition.

( 5 ) EARLIER by a judgement and order dated 21st July, 2000 the present petition had been disposed of as having abated. The operative part of the said order reads as under:"12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this special civil application abates and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner has been divested of whatever his right, title and interest in the land and that this land now is in possession of the tenants and they are entitled to retain this land and the relationship of landlord and tenants if any ceases to be there between the petitioner and tenants with effect from the date of order and as this land vests with the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled for any rent whatsoever to be recovered from the tenants. It is a land now as a gift to the tenants by the State Government as the State Government has not taken action of taking possession from the tenants in time. Rule stands discharged accordingly with no order as to costs. "

( 6 ) THE aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by both the petitioner, as well as by the State Government, by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 2002 and 702 of 2003, respectively. By a common judgment and order dated 17th March, 2005, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious jurisdictional error by declaring the tenants of the appellant as the permanent occupiers of the land and conferring upon them the right to enjoy the land for ever. It was further held that in the writ petition filed by the appellant against the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge could not have created new relationship between the tenants and the State Government ignoring the fact that the appellant was the owner of the disputed land. The Division Bench was further of the view that the learned Single Judge could not have declared the proceedings initiated under the Act as having abated without properly deciding the issue as to whether physical possession of the land had been taken over by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document