At stake is land worth hundreds of crores, though a precise figure is not available because the Revenue Department is still collecting details. Officials also fear that in many cases where the Government had transferred land to individuals and institutions, the judgments could lead to a messy situation.

While the Government is trying to control the damage by filing appeals, fingers are being pointed at Government pleader Prashant Desai, appointed during the Shankersinh Vaghela regime, and three other Government lawyers who, it is alleged, furnished wrong information before the court.Eminent lawyer Girish Patel apprehends the judgments could create major law and order problems, as the original owners will try to take possession of land.``Those having money and muscle power may try to evict innocent people. They might even try to create evidence of possession with retrospective effect,'' he remarked.

Most of the cases were disposed of by Justice K R Vyas between May 5 and May 12, 1999. Besides Desai, assistant pleaders Satish Pandya, Tushar Sompura and Apurva Vyas represented the Government. The owners had challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.

The owners claimed the land was still in their possession. The Government advocates, it is said, corroborated it. As possession is nine tenths of the law and ULCRA had been repealed in March, the court decision was in favour of the owners, explained an officer.

But the Legal Department has found that the ``concerned Government Pleader had not clarified the facts of possession'' in at least 234 cases. A scrutiny of other cases is still on. An internal communication of the Revenue Department says: ``Upon verification of facts...aswell as from parawise remarks prepared by the authorities for the Government lawyers, it is clear that in most cases, the possession of the land was with the Government on the judgment dates.''

Besides, ``in a few cases, the Government had even disposed of the land. Thus, third party interest was in existence in these cases'', which could cause a huge financial loss and a lot of inconvenience to the Government. According to a senior Government officer, the cases raise the suspicion of collusion between Government advocates and the petitioners. Senior advocate Haroobhai Mehta, who says such collusion ``wasn't unknown'', describes the episode as ``shocking''. He, however, adds that ``matters can be rectified''. Such problems arise because Government lawyers are selected on political considerations, he says.

But, Prashant Desai says the allegations against him had been ``cooked up'', and the Government had not given him any instructions. ``I'm not sure of the assistant Government pleaders, but at least Iacted according to the Government Resolution of March 30, 1999, repealing the Urban Land Ceiling Act,'' he said, adding, ``In only three or four matters, I found that the possession of land was with the Government.'' Vyas said, ``We went by the Government Resolution repealing ULCRA.'' Sompura said he followed Desai's instructions, ``since he is our leader''. Pandya could not be contacted. Desai said he had now asked the Government to specify the cases in which possession was with it, the date when the possession was taken, and the area of land. ``But I am sure they won't give me anything.''