IMPORTANT POINT: It is settled proposition of law that a person can claim to be aggrieved, if his legal rights are directly affected.

B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present petition was originally filed by Baldevbhai Shivabhai Patel, who had challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 21.12.1987 passed by the respondent No. 2, competent authority and Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, whereby the respondent No. 2 while processing the Form of the original owner Khumabhai Vanabhai, had declared the land admeasuring 3947 sq. mtrs. of Survey No. 387/2, belonging to the said Khumabhai Vanabhai Vaghari, as the excess vacant land under the provisions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The said original petitioner Baldevbhai having expired, during the pendency of the petition, his legal heirs were permitted to be brought on record as per the order dated 03.02.2009.

2. It appears that the petition was disposed of by the Single Bench vide the order dated 08.07.1999 in view of the Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act'). Similar such matters as the present petition, were also disposed of by the learned Single Bench, against which the State Government had preferred Letters Patent Appeals being No. 978 of 2001 and others. In the said Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench vide the common judgment dated 29.07.2004, set aside the orders passed by the Single Bench, and remanded the matters to the Single Bench for deciding them afresh. The Division Bench also directed the parties to maintain status-quo regarding the lands in question till the final disposal of the writ petitions. The Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No. 2209 of 2004 preferred in the present Special Civil Application was also disposed of vide the order dated 15.03.2005 (Annexure R/11) in view of the said order dated 29.07.2004 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 978 of 2001 and connected matters. The order dated 15.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench reads as under:-

"This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9559/95.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that order similar to the one impugned in the appeal has been set aside by a coordinate Bench vide its order dated 29.7.2004 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 978/01 and connected matters.

In view of the above, we allow the appeal with the direction that Special Civil Application No. 9559/95 be listed for re-hearing before learned Single Judge alongwith other similar applications.

The detailed reasons recorded in order dated 29.7.2004 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 978/01 and connected matters shall be read as part of this order."

3. It further appears that after the remand of the matter, the legal heirs of the original petitioner Baldevbhai filed one Civil Application No. 1291 of 2010 for joining one Jyotiprasad Devkinandan Chiripal and Chandralal Bulchand Ambavani, as the petitioners in the present petition stating inter alia that pending the petition, the original petitioner Baldevbhai had sold out the land in question by executing a registered sale deed in favour of one Vishnubhai Madhabhai Patel and Balvant Purshottamdas Patel, and they in turn had sold out the land to the said two persons Jyotiprasad and Chandralal. The said civil application for joining the proposed two petitioners came to be dismissed by the Court vide the detailed order dated 05.03.2010. However, it appears that thereafter another Civil Application being No. 2216 of 2013 came to be filed by the said two persons namely Jyotiprasad Devkinandan Chiripal and Chandralal Bulchand Ambavani through their Power of Attorney Holder Pravinbhai Ratilal Patel for impleading them as party petitioners No. 2 and 3 to conduct the petition of their own. The said application came to be granted by the Court after hearing the learned advocate for applicants, learned advocate for the legal heirs of the petitioner, who