( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22. 4. 2007 in re-granting land of Survey No. 3 Paiki of Mota Mava, district: Rajkot admeasuring 6422 sq. mtrs and also order dated 14. 12. 2006 of the revenue Department, State Government in approving the re-grant of the land in question. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 29. 3. 2008 issued by special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals ).

( 2 ) THIS Court has issued notice on 25. 9. 2008 and granted ad-interim relief directing the parties to maintain status-quo as regards the land in dispute. While issuing the notice and granting ad-interim relief the court has recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that despite it being a settled legal position, as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2703 as well as in a catena of decisions that if land acquired for a public purpose is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, then it can be utilized for any other public purpose or can be disposed of by way of public auction. The Court has further recorded the submission that, in the present case, the respondent State authority have, in blatant disregard of the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court, re-granted the lands in dispute in favour of the respondent no. 3.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner before the court was that the respondent No. 3 was the original owner of Revenue Survey No. 3 paiki of Village Mota Mava admeasuring 5 acres 14 Gunthas. In the year 1973-74 land admeasuring 6422 sq. mtrs. out of the aforesaid Survey number was acquired by the State Government for widening of the road. The award of acquisition bearing no. 17/72-73 dated 23. 1. 1974 was passed and the compensation towards this acquisition was also paid to the respondent no. 3 and received by him. The Urban Land ceiling Act, 1976 was in force and was applicable to the entire land of Survey No. 3 admeasuring 5 Acres 14 Gunthas. The respondent No. 3 and his family members had filed Form No. 6 (1) under the Urban land Ceiling Act. The case under the Urban land Ceiling Act was pending. The respondent No. 3 made a representation to the petitioner and his partners that looking to the legal position each adult member of huf of respondent No. 3 could get one unit admeasuring 1500 sq. mtrs. each from the land in question.

( 4 ) THE respondent No. 3 and remaining four adult male members of the respondent no. 3 had entered into five different agreements to sell for each unit admeasuring 1500 sq. mtrs. with the petitioner and his partners on 18. 6. 1997, in which the other Members of the respondent no. 3 signed as confirming parties, which were registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Rajkot. The respondent No. 3 executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of 1500 sq. mtrs. in favour of Shri Chhaganlal t. Kasandra and Jayaben Manvad on 18. 6. 1997. Similarly other agreements to sell were also executed on 18. 6. 1997. In fact, all the purchasers in the aforesaid Agreements to Sell were partners and agreements to sell were executed by different family members of respondent No. 3 only with a view to avoid the rigours of Urban Land Ceiling act.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that there was a partnership firm, namely, M/s. Panchratna Developers wherein the present petitioner and one Shri Chhaganlal trikamlal were the partners. The respondent no. 3 and his family members had executed agreement to Develop the land admeasuring 10500 sq. mtrs. of Survey no. 3. The respondent No. 3 at the relevant time represented to the petitioner and his partners that as per provision of Section 21 (1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 the petitioner was entitled to retain 10500 sq. mtrs. of land for construction of housing society for weaker sections of the