RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Art. 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to quash and set aside the order dated 19.5.1987 at Annexure-C by which the exemption under sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been cancelled and the order dated 28.1.1987 passed by the Competent Authority, respondent No. 3, at Annexure-D and also the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in Appeal No. 42/87 dated 11.5.1989 at Annexure-E, on the grounds stated in the petition.

2. Heard learned counsel Shri JM Patel for the petitioners. Learned counsel Shri Patel submitted that the original owner had filled in Form 6 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and had applied for exemption under sec. 20 of the Act. He submitted that the exemption was granted vide order dated 31.8.1979 in respect of the entire land. He submitted that the petitioners have purchased the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 26, 27 & 28 situated at Village Narol, Taluka-District Ahmedabad by registered sale deed dated 22.7.1981 from the original owner after obtaining permission of the authority which had granted permission in Case No. 18 dated 31.7.1981. The exemption was cancelled as per the order dated 19.5.1987 at Annexure-C after the notice was issued dated 24.11.1986. The original owner had filed a reply. However, the exemption was cancelled. Therefore, an appeal was preferred before the Urban Land Tribunal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.5.1989 at Annexure-E.

3. Learned counsel Shri Patel referred to the papers of Special Civil Application No. 10756 of 2001 filed by some of the heirs of the deceased original owner. He submitted that the proceedings which were initiated were pending when the aforesaid SCA No. 190/92 was filed and the status-quo was granted in SCA No. 190/92, meaning thereby, the proceedings were pending when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Repeal Act’) was brought into force on 30.3.1999. Learned counsel Shri Patel submitted that when the Repeal Act came into force, the proceedings were pending and the status-quo was granted by the court and therefore no possession can be said to have been taken over legally and validly.

4. Learned counsel Shri Patel referred to the papers and submitted that though it is contended that the notice under sec. 10(5) dated 21.6.1990 has been issued, produced at page 240, no such notice has been served upon the petitioners. He submitted that the notice seems to have been served to the original owner. He pointedly referred to the panchnama and submitted that even in the panchnama it has been recorded that actual physical possession is of Ratanlal, owner of Abhay Textiles who has not been served with any notice. Learned counsel Shri Patel therefore referred to the provisions of sec. 10(4), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act and submitted that it refers to the notice to the person in possession and admittedly, though the authorities were aware that the possession of the land in question is of Ratanlal, no such notices have been served. He submitted that as, admittedly, the possession is with Ratanlal, the owner of Abhay Textiles, the possession of the land in question could not have been taken over from the original owner who does not have the possession. Learned counsel Shri Patel submitted that this itself suggests that the panchnama cannot be relied upon. He also referred to Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), particularly Rule 5(2)(b) and submitted that it specifically provides that notice has to be served to every interested person. He therefore submitted that when the authorities were aware about the possession by the third person, notice ought to have been served, and since no