RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

It is really painful that dishonesty is the order of the day. But then, there has to be a limit to everything, including that of obtaining orders from the Court by suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the facts by twisting them so as to see that the same suits the appellant-original petitioner.

2. The present appellant Shri Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya, describing himself as representing M/s. General Cement Pipes Co., is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 07.07.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9057 of 1998.

3. The facts of the case are not only long but are deliberately so presented by the learned Advocate for the appellant-original petitioner that, if possible, the Court gets confused in the facts of the case and passes an order as he was able to procure in earlier proceedings being Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1998. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is a tenant of land bearing city survey No.288/4 of mouje Chandlodiya, Taluka, City, District Ahmedabad, admeasuring 5160 sq. mtr. and he is running cement pipes factory. The appellant-original petitioner has taken this land on lease from late Shri Shivabhai Somabhai Patel. It is the case of the appellant-original petitioner that it was prior to Urban Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) coming into force that the appellant filled in form No.1 before the authorities as required under Section 6(1) of the said Act on 12.09.1976, as mentioned in the order passed by the Competent Officer and Additional Collector. Interestingly, that form came to be adjudicated by the competent authority and the competent authority declared land admesuring 4160 sq. mtr. as excess vacant land by order dated 26.08.1985. The order of the competent authority was taken in appeal before the Urban Land Tribunal by filing Appeal No.Ahmedabad-155 of 1990 and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 31.12.1990, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to SCA No.9057 of 1998. It will not be inappropriate to mention here that this order of the Tribunal dated 31.12.1990 is never challenged by the appellant-original petitioner.

3.1 It is the case of allottees that land admeasuring 25 mtr. each was allotted to them out of this excess vacant land on 29.01.1998. It is only on account of sheer dishonesty on the part of the appellant-original petitioner that these allottees, who are allotted land admeasuring 25 mtr. each on account of they having been identified as urban poor , are longing to have shelter /roof to hide their heads, are put to irreparable loss in light of the fact that the construction cost as it stood in 1998 has got multiplied not less than approximately eight to ten times. Be that as it may, the only difficulty is that the system does not have effective measures to check such frivolous litigation and to restrain people like the present appellant-original petitioner from misusing the system of delivery of justice.

3.2 One fine morning, i.e. on 03.03.1998, the appellant original petitioner (of SCA No.9057 of 1998) filed Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1998. For the reasons best known to the appellant, though a copy of SCA No.1584 of 1998 is produced before, the same is produced as it stood before amendment. A very plausible explanation is coming forward from the learned Advocate for the appellant that he did not represent the appellant-original petitioner at the relevant time. It is really surprising and shocking both that such an argument is advanced by learned Advocate for the appellant. Special Civil Application No.1584 of 1998 was filed drafting it very smartly. It was prayed that:-

21. (A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to grant appropriate land (at least 3000 sq. mtrs.) or any oth