PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

1.1 These appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the common judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 23.8.2006 in Special Civil Applications No. 3134/2001 and 13380/2006, whereby, both the petitions are dismissed with costs. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petitions, which were filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, has also observed that both the petitions were filed with a view to extract undue benefits by abusing the process of law. The present appellants are original petitioners.

1.2 Before learned Single Judge, challenge was made to the order passed by the Government dated 7.12.2000, whereby the sale of land, made by the appellants of LPA No: 1875/2007, in the year 1981 is held to be legal and valid. It is pertinent to note that it is the sellers of the land, who are challenging the order of the Government, whereby, the sale-deed dated 6.7.1981, jointly executed by them and their father (since deceased), is held to be legal and valid.

1.3 It is required to be noted that the land in question is more than 60,000 sq.mtrs. It is on the outskirts of Ahmedabad City and now within the limits of 'Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority', prices of land have sky rocketed in recent past, and under these circumstances, the sellers have come to this court contending that, while they and their father sold the land to the respondents in the year 1981 (sale deed of 6.7.1981), they i.e. appellants should have taken permission from the government, which they had not taken and therefore the sale is void, appellants should get their land back, they are ready to pay back the sale consideration which they and their father had received in the year 1981 and they are also ready to pay penalty to the government for this default, which is indicated to be Rs.250/- by them. Further, all these niceties and juggleries are pressed into service before this court under the pretext of alleged violation of 'The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947' (hereinafter referred to as 'The Prevention of Fragmentation Act' for short), the object of which is to prevent the fragmentation of agricultural holdings and to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings, for the purpose of the better cultivation thereof, while the land in question is already 'Non Agricultural' land by this time.

1.4 It is in this background that the learned Single Judge recorded finding to the effect that both the petitions were filed with a view to extract undue benefits by abusing the process of law. Learned Single Judge has also answered each contention raised by the petitioners regarding the effect of alleged violation of different provisions of The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and found that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

1.5 It is this order of learned Single Judge which is under challenge in these appeals.

2. We have heard Mr.S.B.Vakil learned Senior Counsel with Mr.K.V.Shelat for the appellants in LPA No. 1875/2007 and Mr. Mihir J. Thakor learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Manav Mehta for the appellants in LPA No. 1065/2007. We have also heard Mr. A.J.Patel learned counsel with Mr. Shital Patel and Mr. Percy Kavina learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Viral K. Shah learned advocates for the respondents and Mr. L.R. Pujari learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objections and have contended that, apart from the fact that the appellants have no case on merits, the appellants can not be said to be party aggrieved, and in any case, they are not the persons who can be entrusted with the writ of this Court. It is further contended as preliminary objection that, apart from the fact that the filing of petitions before this court, was abuse of process of law, which is so observed and found by learned Single Judge, but even after