Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner one Bharthana Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (a registered Co-operative Society under Section 9 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961) is before this Court through its President praying that, “(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus or in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 4/9/2003 (Ann.A) and order dtd.28/5/1987 (Ann.C) passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider the applications dated 17/12/2003 (Ann.J) and June-2003 (Ann.H) in accordance with law and in accordance with provision under Section 34 and Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and further directing the respondents to declare the proceedings under Sections 8 and 9 and 10, if any, of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 abates qua land bearing R.S. No. 29/paiki Block No. 34/4 of Village: Althan, Sub-Distt. Choryasi, District: Surat, in case the respondents found that legal, physical and actual possession was never taken over of the land from the petitioner-Society. (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s directing the respondents to modify the area of holding of the petitioner as per the final Plot No. 35 alloted under the T.P. Scheme No. 28 (Althan-Bhatar) (Ann.D) and to reduce the area of alleged excess vacant land according to the deduction made under the T.P. Scheme No. 28 (Althan-Bhatar) from the land bearing R.S. No. 29 paiki Block No. 34/4 of Village: Althan, Sub-District: Choryasi, District: Surat”. 2. 2. The paragraph No. 9 later on amended by adding 9(B)(i) and 9(B)(ii) reads as under: “9(B)(i) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s and/or directions, quahsing and setting aside the order dated 22.12.1994 passed by the learned Urban Land Tribunal in Ceiling Appeal No. 87 of 1992 (Annexure-O) 9(B)(ii) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or writ in nature off certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s and/or directions quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.2.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-S)” 3. Learned advocate, Mr. K.K. Trivedi, opened the matter by saying that on instructions of his client, he is to press the relief prayed for in clause-D at Para-9. Clause D reads as under: (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s directing the respondents to modify the area of holding of the petitioner as per the final Plot No. 35 alloted under the T.P. Scheme No. 28 (Althan-Bhatar) (Ann.D) and to reduce the area of alleged excess vacant land according to the deduction made under the T.P. Scheme No. 28 (Althan-Bhatar) from the land bearing R.S. No. 29 paiki Block No. 34/4 of Village: Althan, Sub- District: Choryasi, District: Surat”. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that after the order was passed by the Competent Authority under ULC Act on 28.5.1987, whereby, 931 Sq.Mtrs. land was declared to be excess, the land, in question, was the subject matter of the aforesaid T.P. Scheme and in that T.P. Scheme, the area of the land held by the petitioner was reduced to 2783. It is the case of the petitioner that therefore, ULC should take into consideration, the area which stood after the deduction under the T.P. Scheme. 5. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be heard saying this because the order passed by ULC was passed in the year 1988. It is, thereafter, the T.P. Scheme came into force and necessary deductions are made under the T.P. Scheme and therefore, he is not entitled to take benefit of the order passed under ULC Act. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned AGP assisted the Court on behalf of State Government- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 7. It is, thereafter, the T.P. Scheme came into force and necessary deductions are made under the T.P. Scheme and therefore, he is not entitled to take benefit of the order passed under ULC Act. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned AGP assisted the Court on behalf of State Government- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 7. In this regard, the learned advocate, Mr. Premal Joshi, appearing for Respondent No. 4 invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by Mrudulaben Bankimbhai Desai who is purchaser of the excess land in auction and if any indulgence is granted to the petitioner, her rights will be directly affected. Learned advocate, Mr. Joshi, invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit which reads as under: 6. “I state and submit that the statement under Section 8(1) was prepared and the notice under Section 8(3) was issued on 7.4.1982. Annexed here to and marked as Annexure-B. Against which, no objection had been received. Further, the notice under Section 8(4) was also issued to opponent No. 4 from 27.2.1984 to 18.5.1987. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C collectively. 7. I state and submit that the District Registrar initiated the proceedings under Sections 107 and 108(1) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 for liquidation of petitioner – society and the procedure for appointment of Liquidator. 8. I submit that on 30.7.1985, the Liquidator represented the case and filed his objection by written statement. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D. 9. The Competent Authority and Additional Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Surat by order dated 28.5.1987 declared the total land of 1902 Sq.Mtrs. as surplus land after deducting one unit and old construction. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E. 10. I further submit that the final statement was prepared under Section 9 on 28.5.1987. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-F. The notification under Section 10(1) was published in the gazette on 21.1.1988. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-G. The notification under Section 10(3) was published in the gazette on 30.3.1989. Annexed here to and marked as Annexure-H. In pursuance of the same, the notice for possession was also issued under Section 10(5) on 17.4.1989. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-I and accordingly, the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector (ULC) had taken over possession of surplus land in the presence of the panchas on 30.7.1990. Annexed here to and marked as Annexure-J. 11. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-I and accordingly, the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector (ULC) had taken over possession of surplus land in the presence of the panchas on 30.7.1990. Annexed here to and marked as Annexure-J. 11. I submit that the District Registrar handed over administration of the society to the opponent society on 27.9.1990. The petitioner-Society filed the appeal before the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, Ahmedabad under Section 33 on 6.9.1992. The said appeal came to be rejected on 22.12.1995. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-K. 12. I submit that the competent authority passed the award of compensation under Section 11 on 2.5.1998. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-L. The Repeal came into force on 30.3.1999. . . . . .” 8. In view of that, there is no case made out by the petitioner for grant any indulgence or the relief. 9. Hence, the present petition is found without any substance and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.