JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 31.5.1991 passed by the appellate authority in Ceiling Appeal No.119 of 1989 confirming order dated 7.10.1988 of the competent authority. By the said order, the competent authority has found that the petitioner was holding excess land.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-

2.1 On coming into operation of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, the petitioner filed Form No.1 under Section 6 of the said Act in the office of Additional Collector and Competent Authority, which was numbered as Ceiling Case No.Vatva-87. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing Plot No.92, admeasuring 2789 sq.mtrs., Plot No.93 admeasuring 2789 sq.mtrs. and plot No.94, admeasuring 5557 sq.mtrs. in all admeasuring 18360 sq.mtrs. situated in Block No.3 of Nandolia Industrial Estate, situated on land bearing Survey No.494 and others of Village-Vatva, Taluka-Dascroi, District and Sub-district-Ahmedabad. The entire property is known as Nandolia Industrial Estate, which is in the industrial zone. The petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Act for the purpose of obtaining necessary permission. This fact is also mentioned in Form No.1 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that second respondent ought to have taken into consideration the fact that an application dated 12.8.1976 made under Section 20 of the Act by the petitioner is pending before first respondent. The petitioner states that second respondent ought to have held that disposal of Form No.1 shall be subject to result of application under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner states that in view of change of policy made by first respondent, the petitioner filed application under Section 20 before Commissioner of Industries, and inspite of pendency of such application, third respondent by his order dated 7.10.1988 declared certain area of land as surplus land. Being aggrieved by said order dated 7.10.1988, the petitioner preferred Ceiling Appeal No.119 of 1989 before second respondent. Second respondent by his order dated 31.5.1992 dismissed said appeal. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner has preferred present petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner and learned AGP, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent-State at length. Perused the material placed on record as well as the decisions cited at bar.

4. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts, which are narrated in the memo of petition. He further submitted that the order of competent authority and appellate authority is not proper. He has submitted that That second respondent ought to have taken into consideration the fact that an application dated 12.8.1976 made under Section 20 of the Act by the petitioner is pending before first respondent. The petitioner states that second respondent ought to have held that disposal of Form No.1 shall be subject to result of application under Section 20 of the Act. He further submitted that in view of change in policy, such application under Section 20 of the Act was also filed before Commissioner of Industries on 30.6.1982, which is pending. He submitted that when such application was pending, land of the petitioner could not have been declared as surplus. He further submitted that the petitioner purchased the land in question by registered Sale Deeds dated 3.8.1971 and from such Sale Deeds it is clear that the lands in question were converted to Non-Agricultural use and there was construction upon the said land and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the petitioner has not been served with notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act, though the competent authority has stated that after issuing notice under Section 10 (5), possession was taken over, however, no such notice has