(1.) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the orders made by the Competent Authority under sec.10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act on the ground that so long as the petitioners' application filed under sec.20 of the Act remained pending, the authority had no jurisdiction to proceed and pass any order under sec.10(3) of the Act or take any proceeding subsequent to sec.10(3) of the Act. Placing reliance upon certain judgments of this Court, it is contended that if the application filed under sec.20 of the Act is pending and has not been disposed of, the Competent Authority would only be entitled to proceed upto sec.10(2) of the Act and not beyond that, because, the grant of the permission under sec.20 or sec.21 of the Act may nullify all the proceedings under sec.10 of the Act.
(2.) For the reasons best known to the petitioners, copy of the application submitted by them to the Governments was not filed as an Annexure. When the court asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners (Shri S.M. Shah, who had appeared on the earlier occasion) informed the court that he was not possessed of the application. The court asked the Government to call for the original records. Shri Shah, on the next date of hearing produced copy of 3 page application and made a statement before the court that it was the true copy of the application submitted by the petitioners. Shri Shah sought permission from the court stating that by mistake 2 pages, as page No.3, have been filed. He sought the permission from the court and removed one page and in his own handwriting, corrected page No.3 as page No.2 and page No.4 as page No.3. He made a statement at bar that it was 3 page application only.
(3.) Shri Kogje, learned A.G.P. made a statement before the court that the statement made by Shri Shah was a wrong statement, because two applications of even date were filed, one was of 4 pages while the other was of 5 pages.