The importance of disclosing true and correct facts in a legal proceeding and the consequences of suppressing material facts.

B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present petition was originally filed by the four petitioners, challenging the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal on 25.11.1985 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. 69/1985 and the order passed by the respondent No. 1 competent authority on 30.12.1982 (Annexure-B), and also challenging the Notifications published by the respondent authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

2. It appears that the petition was earlier disposed of by the Single Bench vide the order dated 16.6.2000 on the ground that the petition had stood abated in view of the provisions contained in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act"). The said order was challenged by the State Authorities by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002. The said LPA was allowed by the Division Bench vide the order dated 9.5.2002, setting aside the order passed by the Single Bench. It appears that thereafter the petitioners through their power-of-attorney holder Shri Ananisharan Bhrahmbhatt had filed the Misc. Civil Application (Restoration) No. 50/2013 in LPA No. 81/2002 after about nine years of the said order dated 9.5.2002, praying for recalling of the said order dated 9.5.2002 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 81/2002 on the ground that one of the petitioners i.e. Ravjibhai Chhotabhai Patel had expired on 16.7.2001, during the pendency of the LPA. The subsequent Division Bench vide the separate orders dated 9.1.2013 condoned the delay and allowed the said MCA. The operative part of the order reads as under:--

"4....Without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter the application deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. Judgment and order dated 09.05.2002 is hereby recalled and the Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002 is allowed to the extent that the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 2206 of 1986 dated 16.06.2000 stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge, who is requested to decide the matter on merits after giving full opportunity to both the sides."

3. In view of the said order, the petition has been again heard and is being decided accordingly.

4. As per the case of the petitioners, one Smt. Javerbai, wife of Somabhai Mohanbhai was the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 660/2 and land bearing Survey No. 662 of village Kapurai, District Baroda. The said Javerbai had executed a "Will" on 30.5.1974 bequeathing the said lands to the petitioners. She died on 11.7.1974. Thereafter the said Act having come into force, all the petitioners had filled in the Form No. 1 declaring the said lands as their holdings under Section 6 of the said Act. The competent authority under the said Act had processed the Form, and declared vide the order dated 30.12.1982 (Annexure-B) that the petitioners as body of individuals held the land admeasuring 101 sq. mtr., of Survey No. 660/2 and land admeasuring 3154 sq. mtr., of Survey No. 662 as the excess vacant land. The said order of the competent authority came to be challenged by the petitioners on 1.4.1985 i.e. after a lapse of about two years and three months by filing the Appeal being No. 69/1985 before the Urban Land Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts that the possession of the land in dispute was already taken over on 19.9.1985 and that the land had already vested in the Government, did not condone the delay occurred in filing the said appeal, and vide the order dated 25.9.1985 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the present petition.

5. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Patel for the petitioners that despite the observations made by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 81 of 2002, the petitioners were entitled to raise all the issues on merits, the said order having been recall