( 1 ) MR. R. C. Kodekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the petitioner, Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Saurabh Amin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 are heard.

( 2 ) BEFORE I refer to the facts of the case, I must record that present is a case, where, Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Saurabh Amin learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, tried their best to mislead this Court by making false statements and misstatements in the Court. With bruised feeling and bleeding heart, I am required to record all what had taken place in the court in presence of Mr. A. J. Patel, Mr. Shital R. Patel, Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, Ms. Neesha Parikh, Dr. Amee Yajnik, learned counsel and each person was listening that how these two advocates, despite repeated warning from the Court, were making false misleading statements to obtain favourable orders.

( 3 ) TO start, I asked Mr. Amin that whether the order dtd. 29/4/1992 (Annexure-B) passed by the Deputy Collector confiscating 17 Acres land in view of the breach of the terms of the allotment order, was ever challenged by the respondent No. 2, Mr. Amin said in the open Court that the order was challenged before the Collector, who confirmed it and thereafter, it was challenged before the Secretary, who had set aside the order of confiscation and directed regularization of 32 Acres of land in favour of the respondent No. 2.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the record shows that in the year 1996, a notice to show cause was issued and in response to that show cause notice, the parties had appeared before the authority and ultimately on 20/9/1996, order of confiscation of entire land was made,thereafter the appeal was dismissed and in the year 1997, revision filed at the instance of respondent No. 1, was allowed. In fact, order dtd. 29/4/1992 was not challenged by any respondent.

( 5 ) EVEN after going through the records, Mr. Saurabh Amin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 did not correct his earlier statement but went on arguing that the respondent No. 2 had made an application somewhere in the year 1990 for allotment of the land to the State Government, therefore, they were entitled to the said allotment.

( 6 ) I again asked Mr. Amin that applications submitted by the respondent No. 1 or by the respondent No. 2, if were not considered by the authority before confiscation of 17 Acres of land and if the parties were aggrieved by non-consideration of their application, why did they not challenge the order dtd. 29/4/1992 directing confiscation of 17 Acres of land. It was submitted by Mr. Amin that the Secretary had passed an order after taking into consideration the application made by the respondent No. 2.

( 7 ) I asked Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that if the order dtd. 29/4/1992 was not challenged by the respondent No. 2 or order dtd. 20/9/1996 passed by the Deputy Collector confiscating further 15 Acres of land, was not challenged by the respondent No. 2 and challenge in the revision filed by the respondent No. 1 was confined to resumption of 78 Acres land only, then, how could the Secretary in his revisional jurisdiction hold that the land be given to the respondent No. 2 after taking premium and imposition of fine, Mr. Amin, learned counsel submitted that the facts were brought to the notice of the Secretary and he was entitled to pass such an order.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mrs. Ketty Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 1 never challenged the first order directing confiscation of 17 Acres of land or second order directing confiscation of 15 Acres of land, as he was interested in saving 78 Acres land only.

( 9 ) I asked Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that prior to permission by the competent officer in relation to sale, alienation or transfer, how could the possession of 17 Acres of land be given to the respondent No. 2, Mr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document