R. R. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) ). Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6008 of 1996 has been allotted Final Plot Nos. 650, 594 and 688 of Town Planning Scheme No. 28 in lieu of original Survey Nos. 549a+b and 949b, etc. At present the dispute is confined to possession of Final Plot No. 650 only. Similarly, the petitioner of Special civil Application No. 4830 of 1985 has been allotted Final Plot No. 651 in T. P. Scheme No. 28 of New Wadaj in lieu of original Survey No. 548/2 and Plot No. 184. The preliminary scheme has been sanctioned somewhere in December 1980 yet the petitioners have not been given possession of their respective final plots though they have paid their respective contribution under S. 66 of the Gujarat Town planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (the Act for short ). It appears that facing some impediment in handing over possession, the Town Planning Officer proposed variation but the same was rejected by the State Government and thus handing over of possession has been withheld. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of proposed variation and the consequent effect of not delivering possession the petitioners have filed these petitions for issuing appropriate writs quashing the order of rejection of proposed variation and directing respondents to hand over possession. ( 2 ) ). Since both the petitions involve identical question of law and facts except number of final plots and their respective measurement, the same are disposed of by this common judgment by referring to the documents produced in Special Civil application No. 4830 of 1985 only. ( 3 ) ). I have heard learned Advocates. Perused the affidavit-in-reply with documents annexed, filed by Town Development Officer of respondent - Ahmedabad Municipal corporation. I do not find any dispute between parties about redistribution and measurement of final plots. Similarly, there is no dispute that possession of final plots has not been given to the petitioners though the scheme is sanctioned in december 1980. But the respondent-Corporation has expressed inability in implementing the Town Planning Scheme owing to vociferous objection and resistance from the residents of local area and vicinity. The respondent has also produced copy of plan showing boundaries of final plots as well as proposed road in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme No. 28, New Wadaj, Ahmedabad. Under the scheme 12. 20 mt. The respondent has also produced copy of plan showing boundaries of final plots as well as proposed road in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme No. 28, New Wadaj, Ahmedabad. Under the scheme 12. 20 mt. wide existing road is merged into final plot Nos. 650 and 651 and is proposed to be closed and a new road in between Final Plot Nos. 650 and 651 on northern side and Final Plot No. 592 on southern side is proposed. As the respondent-Corporation attempted to close existing road and open proposed road for implementing the scheme there has been strong objection and resistance from the local residents, therefore, the respondent could not hand over possession of final plots to the petitioners. The respondent has further contended that later on, the impediment posed as above in implementation of the scheme was brought to the notice of petitioners who also became ready to take possession as per existing situation and even respondent is also ready to give possession but State Government has not cleared the proposal stating that unless appropriate variation is made and sanctioned, possession as per existing situation deviating from scheme cannot be given. ( 4 ) ). As contended even in order to give possession of the plots in accordance with existing situation, that is, in odd shape, size and parts, the respondents cannot do so unless the scheme is varied. The proposal was moved but has been turned down by the State Government saying that second variation is pending and unless second variation is sanctioned, this (third) variation cannot be accepted and sanctioned. ( 5 ) ). During the course of hearing, the petitioners have agreed to take possession of their respective plots according to existing situation which would be in variation of original scheme but the Corporation has expressed inability to do so unless proposed variation is sanctioned by the State Government. ( 6 ) ). It is true that as per the procedure prescribed under the Act, preliminary scheme becomes final on being sanctioned by the State Government. Therefore, every subsequent change or variation is also required to be sanctioned by the Government so as to give finality making part of original scheme. Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner has argued that every change or variation is not required to be sanctioned by the state Government. Therefore, every subsequent change or variation is also required to be sanctioned by the Government so as to give finality making part of original scheme. Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner has argued that every change or variation is not required to be sanctioned by the state Government. A variation which is not substantial in nature, can be sanctioned even by Town Planning Officer as made clear in proviso to S. 52 of the Act. The section also defines substantial variation contemplated under S. 52. ( 7 ) ). It cannot be gainsaid that for every variation the competent authority is required to undergo the entire procedure prescribed under the Act before it is sanctioned by the State Government and it is needless to say that the process is timeconsuming and is amenable to litigation. In this case, though the petitioners have been divested of their properties even prior to 1980 and though the preliminary scheme has been sanctioned in 1980 yet even after 18 years they have not been able to enjoy their legitimate rights. As desired by State Government if the competent authority undertakes the exercise of going through the process prescribed under law, may take decade for getting sanction from the State Government and in that case the petitioners would be deprived of their legitimate right for number of years for no fault of them. ( 8 ) ). In this background, the moot question arising for consideration would be as to whether proposed variation requires sanction by Government and whether government is justified in withholding handing over of possession. ( 9 ) ). Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am fully convinced that the proposed variation in the nature of keeping the existing road as it is and merging the proposed road into Final Plot Nos. 650 as well as 651/2, is formal and not substantial and can be made by Town Planning Officer as provided in proviso to s. 52 of the Act. The procedure provided under the Act is aimed to invite objections from aggrieved parties so that their rights may not be affected prejudicially. In fact, in this case, the local residents have objection about the proposed road and implementation of scheme but have no objection if the existing road is kept as it is and is made a part of Town Planning Scheme. In fact, in this case, the local residents have objection about the proposed road and implementation of scheme but have no objection if the existing road is kept as it is and is made a part of Town Planning Scheme. The conduct of all interested and local residents suggests that nobody has objection in allotment of land to the petitioners but they have objection about the closure of existing road and opening proposed road. In the present case, the petitioners have no objection for allotment of plots in accordance with the existing situation, may be in odd size and in parts and measurement. The persons vitally affected, that is, local residents also do not have any objection in continuing the present situation. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not necessary to notify and invite objections as contemplated under the scheme and the procedure can be dispensed with. As regards nature of variation, my attention is drawn to Proviso and Explanation to S. 52 of the Act which read as under :"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx provided that the Town Planning Officer may make variation from the draft scheme, but no such variation, if it is of a substantial nature, shall be made except with the previous sanction of the State Government, and except after hearing the appropriate authority and any owners who may raise objections. Explanations :- (i) For the purpose of this proviso "variation of a substantial nature" means a variation which is estimated by the Town Planning Officer to involve an increase of ten per cent in the costs of the scheme as is described in S. 77 or rupees one lac, whichever is lower, on account of the provisions of new works or the allotment of additional sites for public purposes included in the preliminary scheme drawn up by the town Planning Officer. (ii) If there is any difference of opinion between the Town Planning Officer and the appropriate authority as to whether a variation made by the Town Planning Officer is of substantial nature or not, the matter shall be referred by the appropriate authority to the state Government whose decision thereon shall be final. "thus, according to proviso, a variation not substantial in nature can be made by Town Planning Officer without getting sanction from the Government. The explanations have also defined substantial nature of variation. "thus, according to proviso, a variation not substantial in nature can be made by Town Planning Officer without getting sanction from the Government. The explanations have also defined substantial nature of variation. According to these explanations, variation of substantial nature means, a variation which may involve increase of 10% in the cost of the scheme as described in S. 77 or Rupees one lac, whichever is lower. But in this case, undisputedly, the variation is not entailing any expenditure, muchless increase in the cost of scheme. On the contrary results into substantial loss to petitioners. Thus, in my view, the proposed variation is not of substantial nature. This be so such variation can be made by the Town Planning officer by dispensing with cumbersome procedure under the law. Thus, as provided under S. 52 of the Act the amended scheme can be implemented and the petitioners can be given possession without approaching Government. ( 10 ) ). The variation so made would result into closure of 12. 20 mt. road proposed in the scheme and continue the existing 12. 20 mt. wide road as shown in plan annexed with the affidavit-in-reply. Since, as discussed above, the variation can be made by the Town Planning Officer, there shall not be any hurdle in handing over possession to the respective petitioners even in anticipation of making variation as discussed above. ( 11 ) ). In light of aforesaid legal position, the order of Government rejecting respondents proposal to hand over possession of the final plots as varied would be illegal and arbitrary and in contravention of provisions of S. 52 of the Act, not sustainable at law, hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 12 ) ). From the correspondence between the Corporation and the State Government it transpires that even the second variation pending for approval is withheld owing to pendency of Appeal No. 1 of 1997 in the Board of Appeals (City Civil Court, ahmedabad ). Therefore, appropriate direction for expeditious hearing and disposal can pave way for the Government to sanction the second variation. ( 13 ) ). In the result, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both these petitions require acceptance as under : (i) The respondent, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, is directed to hand over possession of Final Plot Nos. Therefore, appropriate direction for expeditious hearing and disposal can pave way for the Government to sanction the second variation. ( 13 ) ). In the result, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both these petitions require acceptance as under : (i) The respondent, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, is directed to hand over possession of Final Plot Nos. 650, 651/1 and 651/2 to the respective petitioners within one month from the receipt of writ treating the existing road as the proposed road in the Town Planning Scheme No. 28 of New Wadaj and closing the road as proposed in the scheme. The proposed road in the plan annexed with the affidavitin- reply is demarcated in blue lines whereas existing road in red lines and the boundaries of respective plots are demarcated in red colour. This plan shall form part of order and basis for allotment and handing over possession of respective plots to the respective petitioners. Upto possession of plots being given the petitioners shall be at liberty to put wire fencing as per demarcation around the plots in presence of officers of respondent - Municipal Corporation. (ii) The Board of Appeals (City Civil Court, Ahmedabad) is hereby directed to dispose of Town Planning Appeal No. 1 of 1997 on or before 31-12-1997. (iii) The Town Planning Officer of respondent-Corporation is directed to make variation to the aforesaid effect within six months from today by dispensing with the procedure prescribed under law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Copy of writ also be sent to the Board of Appeals (City Civil court, Ahmedabad ). .