MR. BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. -- These two appeals which are proposed to be decided by this decision are filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.6.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9856 of 2000 by the two appellants, one petitioners before learned Single Judge and the other by the respondent whose allotment of land is ordered to be cancelled by learned Single Judge.

2. The petitioners before learned Single Judge had a holding of land in village Nana Mauva bearing Survey No. 71. The area owned by the petitioners as alleged was 4610.41 sq. mtrs. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said Act came into force in the State of Gujarat on 20.8.1976. The petitioners filed two forms under Section 6 of the Act, as according to the petitioners they had different shares in the land in question. In a lis between the petitioners and the State, in relation to the question of separate holdings in village Nana Mauva, has resulted into rejection of the claim of the petitioners by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held that the holding of both the petitioners was liable to be clubbed in view of the provisions of the Act. Thus the proceedings were continued against the petitioners treating their holding to be joint.

3. Draft statement was prepared which was served upon the petitioners. Thereafter, the matter was considered under Section 8 of the Act. The authority under ULC Act , Rajkot, rendered its decision on 27.2.1986. It is also important to note here that an exemption application was made to the Government for commercial use of the land bearing Survey No. 71 measuring 4610 sq. mtrs. However, the same has been rejected by the Government in the year 1983. Therefore, the said land was not liable to be retainable land and the land in question has been declared as surplus.

4. While describing the land in village Nana Mauva bearing Survey No. 71 in Column No. 4, instead of the same being shown as plot Nos. 16 to 23 and 36 to 43, as 16 plots it was mentioned as plot Nos. 1 to 16.

5. On 24.3.1986, a Notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the Act in which the land was described as surplus land of the village Nana Mauva in Survey No. 71 measuring 9031.71 sq. mtrs. Further identification was also mentioned to plot Nos. 1 to 16. On 16.6.1986, Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published showing the details of the land in question as they were mentioned in the Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act.

6. Against the order declaring the land as surplus dated 27.2.1986, the petitioners preferred appeal being Appeal No. Rajkot/41/86 before the Urban Land Tribunal. On 17.6.1986 in the said appeal interim stay was granted against the publication of the Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act but prior to the injunction being granted, on 16.6.1986 the Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act has already been published. The said appeal was decided by the Urban Land Tribunal on 20.12.1988. Two appeals filed by both the petitioners were dismissed.

7. On 26.6.1989 corrigendum was issued for correcting the mistake occurred in the description of plot number and areas of the land in question and in this order of corrigendum it was mentioned that the plots are to be correctly read 16 to 23 and 36 to 43. It has been submitted by the State authorities that on 26.6.1989 itself the possession of the land in question bearing plot Nos. 16 to 23 and plot Nos. 36 to 43 was taken over and panchnama in this regard was drawn. Panchnama for taking the possession as drawn on 26.6.1989 shows that the possession of the land in question has been taken over and over plot Nos. 16, 17, 23 and 24 there are construction of houses.

8. The petitioners preferred Special Civil Application before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 3456 of 1989 against the orders of the authorities under the