B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged final development plan of Kutch District, which is sanctioned by notification dated 12. 12. 2001 at Annexure-D and it is prayed that the said final development plan at annexure-D qua the land of the petitioner i. e. survey No. 112 be declared as null and void. ( 2 ) LAW on this point is very clear. Once a final scheme is prepared, it must be deemed to be part of the act and its original owner losses all his rights over the land and he is liable to be evicted from the land in question. Therefore, in my considered opinion, he has no locus standi to file writ petition and challenge the finalization of the Scheme. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel Shri patel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that when there is a violation of bare minimum statutory requirements, then this court can certainly look into such violation in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. He submitted that in this case, there is a gross violation of Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban development Act, 1976 (for short "the act" ). Mr. Patel submitted that as per the draft scheme the lands of others were also going to be affected whereas as per the final scheme along with the land of the petitioner of survey No. 112 about 50,000 sq. mtrs. of land of others is also going to be affected and the said change is effected without issuing notification or inviting objections from the concerned persons, who were going to be affected by the final scheme. He, therefore, submitted that the challenge at the instance of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of india would be maintainable. He also submitted that from the scheme, which is finalised it is more than clear that with a view to oblige certain persons, the change is effected in the matter and now the way is provided through land survey No. 112 and other pieces of the lands, which were not there earlier. However, he frankly submitted that he has no concrete material to substantiate his say. In any case, according to Mr. Patel it is a malice in law. However, he frankly submitted that he has no concrete material to substantiate his say. In any case, according to Mr. Patel it is a malice in law. Therefore, this court should certainly interfere and exercise its powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) AS stated earlier, the law on this point is very clear. The Honble Supreme court as well as this court consistently refused to exercise its powers under article 226 in such type of cases and this court has interfered only when there is a statutory violation, which is not the case here. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition". ( 5 ) IT is true that in past when the draft scheme was there some other land was to be acquired for the purpose of road. But later on after considering the objections of the authority while preparing final scheme has decided to acquire land of the petitioner and made all efforts for preparing the road, then such decision of the authority cannot be questioned by anyone including the present petitioner. Even if such challenge is made then this court is not an expert on this subject cannot sit on appeal over the decision in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) IT may be stated that the scheme in question was finalised way back in december, 2001 and today we are in the end of June, 2002, we have come across cases where because of the casual interference of courts at times, many of the projects came to stand still, which is not in public interest at all and courts should be slow in interfering and exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the scheme is finalised under the Act. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merits even to issue notice, therefore, it is summarily dismissed. .