Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who is subsequent purchaser of the final plot (FP) and who has purchased the FP much after the Town Planning Scheme became final, has prayed for following reliefs in paragraph 11: A. Your Lordship may be pleased to allow and admit this petition and be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or an appropriate order or an appropriate direction directing the respondent government and the respondent Town Planning Authority to make a variation in the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi, District Vadodara to the extent of allotting about 261 sq.mtrs. deficit area of Final Plot No. 16 to anywhere else to the Respondent No. 1 and 2, without disturbing the existing area and structure of Final Plot No. 17 of the petitioner. B. Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent Town Planning Authority and respondent Municipal Authority not to issue any overlapping construction permission to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which is practically in confrontation of or in contrast with the development permission already issued in favour of the present petitioner for Final Plot No. 17 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi, Dist.Vadodara vide Annexure G, H and I to this petition, to the extent of above 261 sq.mtrs. deficit area of Final Plot No. 16 of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which was never given to them after the reconstitution of Final Plot by the respondent Town Planning Authority to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or to their predecessor in title. C. Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Revenue Authority not to grant the N.A. permission in favour if present Petitioner No. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid 261 sq.mtrs. land of which the possession was never given to them by the Town Planning Authority in Final Plot No. 16. D. Your Lordship may be pleased to declare that the said deficit area of 261 sq.mtrs. of Final Plot No. 16, is a part and parcel of already developed Final Plot No. 17 and the respondent authority may be directed to act accordingly. D. Your Lordship may be pleased to declare that the said deficit area of 261 sq.mtrs. of Final Plot No. 16, is a part and parcel of already developed Final Plot No. 17 and the respondent authority may be directed to act accordingly. 2.0 The facts leading to filing of the present petition in nut-shell are as under: 2.1 That the land bearing survey No. 1263 of Dabhoi, District Vadodara was originally belonging to one Kachiya Parshottambhai Bhanubhai. That the said land was included in the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi and was given original plot ad-measuring 4876 sq.mtrs. of land and on finalization of the said Town Planning Scheme, the said owner was allotted the FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land. Similarly, the land bearing revenue survey No. 1262 sq.mtrs. was belonging to one Bai Suraj and the said land was also subjected to Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi and the said land owner was allotted FP No. 16 ad-measuring 2408 sq.mtrs. of land in lieu of original plot (OP) ad-measuring 3211 sq.mtrs.. It is to be noted that the said Town Planning Scheme has become final and sanctioned by the State Government under Section 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act in the year 1994. That the respective land owners were served with the notice under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”) read with Section 33 of the Act, 1976 for taking over the possession of their respective FP Nos. 16 and 17 and the respective land owners / allottees of FP Nos. 16 and 17 were actually handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of FP Nos. 16 and 17 which they were entitled to under the finalized Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi and the same happened in the year 2003. That it appears that thereafter the petitioner had purchased FP No. 17 from its original owner Kachiya Parhottambhai Bhanubhai by registered sale deed dated 02.07.2004. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased FP No. 16 from its original owner Bai Suraj by registered sale deed dated 31.03.2008. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that Respondent Nos. That it appears that thereafter the petitioner had purchased FP No. 17 from its original owner Kachiya Parhottambhai Bhanubhai by registered sale deed dated 02.07.2004. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased FP No. 16 from its original owner Bai Suraj by registered sale deed dated 31.03.2008. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also purchased FP No. 15 which is situated on southern side of the FP No. 16 from its owner and thereafter they have prayed for N.A. permission for both the FPs ad-measuring 5084 sq.mtrs.. 2.2 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner got the N.A. permission as well as development permission for putting up the construction on FP No. 17 which came to be purchased by him and thereafter had put up the construction on FP No. 17 as per the development permission. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that similarly Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also submitted the application for N.A. permission for entire FP Nos. 15 and 16 alongwith the lay out plan and the Collector has granted N.A. Permission in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 29.06.2010. However, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that while granting N.A. permission about 261 sq.mtrs. of land is overlapping which is from FP No. 17 of the petitioner and therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that either Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have encroached upon 261 sq.mtrs. of land which is forming part of FP No. 17 belonging to the petitioner or while allotting FP No. 16, there is some error committed by the Town Planning Authority and 261 sq.mtrs. of land from FP No. 17 is allotted while allotting FP No. 16. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 261 sq.mtrs. of land is overlapping while allotting FP No. 16. Therefore, it is requested to direct the respondents to vary the Town Planning Scheme to the aforesaid extent. Petitioner has also prayed for the aforesaid reliefs restraining the respondents to not to grant construction permission to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is to be noted that the petitioner has also filed one Regular Civil Suit No. 14/2010 in Civil Court, Dabhoi against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 making a grievance with respect to encroachment of 261 sq.mtrs. Petitioner has also prayed for the aforesaid reliefs restraining the respondents to not to grant construction permission to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is to be noted that the petitioner has also filed one Regular Civil Suit No. 14/2010 in Civil Court, Dabhoi against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 making a grievance with respect to encroachment of 261 sq.mtrs. of land by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the said suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, application Exh.5 is submitted which is still pending before the learned Judge. It is also required to be noted that against granting of N.A. permission in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner had also filed Revision Application No. 7/2010 before the Appellate Authority which is also pending and in the meantime, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application. 3.0 Shri P.R. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have either encroached upon 261 sq.mtrs. of land which is out of FP No. 17 which is allotted to the petitioner/his predecessor in title under the finalized Town Planning Scheme. It is further submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that while allotting FP No. 16, there is an error/mistake committed by the Town Planning Authority and there is overlapping of 261 sq.mtrs. of land out land of FP No. 17 is also allotted while allotting FP No. 16 and therefore, to that extent the Town Planning Scheme is required to be varied and the said overlapping of 261 sq.mtrs. of land is to be allotted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at other place. It is submitted that infact the petitioner had already put up the construction on FP No. 17 after obtaining necessary permission from the Town Planning Authority inclusive of the disputed 261 sq.mtrs. of land and therefore, if the scheme is not varied and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are permitted to put up the construction and/or developed the land inclusive of overlapping 261 sq.mtrs. of land, in that case, the construction put up by the petitioner is likely to be affected. of land and therefore, if the scheme is not varied and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are permitted to put up the construction and/or developed the land inclusive of overlapping 261 sq.mtrs. of land, in that case, the construction put up by the petitioner is likely to be affected. It is submitted by Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even there is a boundary made by the appropriate authority by putting stones while handing over the possession of FP Nos. 16 and 17 to the respective land owners, still Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to encroach upon 261 sq.mtrs. of land from the land bearing FP No. 17. Therefore, it is requested to admit/allow the present petition. 4.0 Heard Shri Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that both the lands bearing survey No. 1263 ad-measuring 4876 sq.mtrs. of land and revenue survey No. 1262 ad-measuring 3211 sq.mtrs. of land were subjected to Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi and the said Town Planning Scheme No. 1 has been sanctioned by the State Government under Section 65 of the Act, 1976 and has become final as far as back in the year 1994 and under the finalized Town Planning Scheme, the owner of the land bearing survey No. 1263 (predecessor of the petitioner) has been allotted FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land and the owner of the land revenue survey No. 1262 (predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) has been allotted FP No. 16 ad-measuring 2408 sq.mtrs. of land. Therefore, FP Nos. 16 and 17 are allotted to the respective land owners on reconstitution of plots on finalization of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi and against the original holding of 4876 sq.mtrs. of land, owner of land bearing survey No. 1263 (predecessor of petitioner) has been allotted FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land only. Similarly, original owner of land bearing survey No. 1262 (predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) has been allotted FP No. 16 ad-measuring 2408 sq.mtrs. of land only against its original holding of 3211 sq.mtrs. of land. Thus, it appears that rest of the land has gone under the Town Planning Scheme for reconstitution of the plots. of land only. Similarly, original owner of land bearing survey No. 1262 (predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) has been allotted FP No. 16 ad-measuring 2408 sq.mtrs. of land only against its original holding of 3211 sq.mtrs. of land. Thus, it appears that rest of the land has gone under the Town Planning Scheme for reconstitution of the plots. It is to be noted that the respective land owners have been served with the notices under Section 68 of the Act, 1976 after the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 was sanctioned and finalized with map showing the area and measurement of FP Nos. 16 and 17 allotted to respective land owners and they have been given possession of FP Nos. 16 and 17 which they are allotted under the finalized Town Planning Scheme No. 1. It appears that the original owners did not raise any objection against the same and they have accepted what is allotted to them under the finalized Town Planning Scheme. Even no grievance was made by any of the original land owners with respect to allotment of FP Nos. 16 and 17 to the respective owners much less a grievance with respect to alleged overlapping of 261 sq.mtrs. of land. Therefore, once the Town Planning Scheme has become final and the same came to be accepted by the original owners, subsequently, the petitioner who is the subsequent purchaser, cannot make a grievance with respect to the Town Planning Scheme which has become final as far as back in the year 1994. It is to be noted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the subsequent purchaser of FP No. 17 who has purchased the same much after the Town Planning Scheme became final. 4.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have encroached upon 261 sq.mtrs. of land from FP No. 17 and/or the land which is in possession of the petitioner. So far as the aforesaid dispute is concerned, it is to be noted that as such one civil suit is already filed by the petitioner being Regular Civil Suit No. 14/2010 which pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Dabhoi and therefore, whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2had encroached upon 261 sq.mtrs. So far as the aforesaid dispute is concerned, it is to be noted that as such one civil suit is already filed by the petitioner being Regular Civil Suit No. 14/2010 which pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Dabhoi and therefore, whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2had encroached upon 261 sq.mtrs. of land from the land bearing FP No. 17 and/or the land which is in occupation and possession of the petitioner shall be decided by the Civil Court on appreciation of evidence. Even otherwise, for such a dispute with respect to boundary between two individuals, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. It is to be noted that as such the petitioner shall be entitled to hold, occupy and use FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land only as per the map/sketch produced alongwith notice under Section 68 of the Act, 1976 and similarly so far as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are entitled to own, occupy and use FP No. 16 ad-measuring 2408 sq.mtrs. of land as per the sketch and map annexed with the notice under Section 68 of the Act, 1976. It might happen that the petitioner might be in possession of 261 sq.mtrs. of land from the land bearing survey No. 1263, which was originally ad-measuring 4876 sq.mtrs. of land which is subsequently allotted by way of FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land and it might be that the petitioner is in possession of the land which he might not have been entitled to beyond 3657 sq.mtrs. of land. All the aforesaid questions are required to be considered and decided by the Civil Court. 4.2 So far as the grievance made by the petitioner with respect to overlapping of 261 sq.mtrs. of land while sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Dabhoi and allotting FP No. 16 to the predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, it is to be noted that Town Planning Scheme has become final as far as back in the year 1994 and it appears that no grievance was made by any of the owners at the relevant time and even no grievance was raised at the time when respective land owners were served with notices under Section 68 of the Act, 1976. Therefore, it is now not open for the petitioner to make a grievance with respect to alleged overlapping of 261 sq.mtrs. of land while allotting FP No. 16. It is to be noted that on one hand the case on behalf of the petitioner is that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have encroached upon 261 sq.mtrs. of land which is allotted to the petitioner and for which a civil suit is filed and on another hand it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that there is an overlapping of 261 sq.mtrs. of land while allotting FP No. 16 to the predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As stated herein above both, petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to only FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land and FP No. 16 ad-measuring 2408 sq.mtrs. of land respectively as per the sketch/map produced by the Town Planning Authority alongwith the notices under Section 68 of the Act, 1976. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even a Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the grant of N.A. permission to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is still pending before the Appellate Authority and the said authority will be at liberty to consider the same looking to the map/sketch prepared by the Town Planning Authority which are served alongwith the notice under Section 68 of the Act, 1976. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not produced the sketch/map which was served upon the predecessor of the petitioner which was annexed with the notice under Section 68 of the Act, 1976. 4.3 Now, so far as the prayer on behalf of the petitioner to direct the respondents to vary the Town Planning Scheme is concerned, the same cannot be granted. As stated herein above, the respective original land owners are allotted FP Nos. 16 and 17 under the finalized Town Planning Scheme which has been sanctioned as far as back in the year 1994 which has been sanctioned after following due procedure as required under the provisions of the Town Planning Act and no grievance was ever raised by the original land owners and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser, to make grievance with respect to the same. Even otherwise, considering the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, 1976, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted. A scheme is to be varied only when it is found by the appropriate authority that same is defective due to arithmetical error or so. In the present case, it appears that as such petitioner himself is not clear as stated herein above. On one hand, his case is with respect to encroachment of 261 sq.mtrs. of land by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and on the other hand, he is making a grievance with respect to overlapping. It appears that the petitioner might have put up the construction on the land bearing survey No. 1263 which is not allotted to the petitioner and/or his predecessor and which is not forming the part of FP No. 17, as against the original holding of 4876 sq.mtrs. of land. From the land bearing survey No. 1263, on reconstitution of the plot on finalized Town Planning Scheme, original land owners has been allotted FP No. 17 ad-measuring 3657 sq.mtrs. of land only, however, the aforesaid questions are required to be considered and decided by the Civil Court and/or the appropriate Forum. 5.0 Under the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as prayed for in the present petition. 6.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present petition which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. P P P P P