Judgment Rule. Learned advocates for opponents have waived service of Notice of Rule. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gandhi for the applicants-original petitioners, Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for opponents Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Adil R. Mirza, learned advocate for opponent No.4-Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. 2. By filing the present Civil Application, the applicants-original petitioners seek amendment of main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.6987 of 2012, which is pending before this Court. Drawing attention of this Court to paragraph No.2 of this Application, learned advocate for the applicants-original petitioners has submitted that after paragraph No.4 in the petition, the applicants-original petitioners want to add paragraph No.4(a) and 4(b), as mentioned therein and the applicants-original petitioners have further sought permission to add paragraph No.7(aa) after paragraph No.7(a) of the main petition. Paragraph No.7(a) of the main petition reads as under: “7(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the proceedings and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26.12.2011 of the Collector Ahmedabad, in so far it directs remand and orders the petitioner to maintain status quo and the notice dated 03.03.2012 issued by the City Deputy Collector in respect of the land of the petitioner. Paragraph No.7(aa), which the applicants-original petitioners want to add after paragraph No.7(a) referred hereinabove reads as under:- “7(aa) By appropriate writ, order of direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner are the exclusive and absolute owners of the property admeasuring 12396.09 Sq.mtrs. and the respondents or any other authority of the government has no right to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the City Deputy Collector as per the notice under challenge be quashed and set-aside,” 3. Referring to the entire paragraph No.2 of this application, learned advocate for the applicants-original petitioners has submitted that the applicants-riginal petitioners do not want to bring new cause of action by amendment sought for vide paragraph No.2 of this application and simply clarificatory amendment sought for by the applicants, which does not amount to change of cause of action or change of nature of petition and the adding of prayer also cannot be said that the new cause of action has been sought for by the applicants-original petitioners. 3.1 Learned advocate for the applicants-original petitioners has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Civil Application No.8021 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013 and submitted that at the appellate stage also, the prayer for possession sought for to be added by way of amendment application, has been granted by this Court and as the applicants herein only sought for clarificatory amendment, which should be granted, as prayed for. 3.2 Learned advocate for the applicants-original petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Gangaben Ambalal Patel V/s. Somabhai Parshottambhai Patel, reported in, 2010(1) GLH 695 . Drawing attention to the Head Note of the above referred citation, learned advocate for the applicants-original petitioners has submitted that as held therein for rendering the substantial justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings/litigations, the Court should grant the prayer more particularly, when no prejudice be caused to the other side. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Adil R. Mirza for opponent No.4-Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has submitted that he is not seriously objecting the present Application, more particularly, because rest of the opponents are the contesting parties so far as the issue involved in the main petition is concerned. 5. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for opponent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that as the copy of this Civil Application, which was served in the office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, is not traceable and therefore, he has requested the learned advocate for the applicants-original petitioners, who has furnished the copy of the said Application and accordingly, under the peculiar circumstances, he has not filed the affidavit-in-reply, challenging the amendment sought for by the present applicants-original petitioners, but he has submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are seriously objecting this Civil Application because the amendment sought for by adding paragraph No.7(aa) can be sought for by the applicants-original petitioners only at time of filing the main petition or at the time when the City Deputy Collector has initiated the proceedings i.e. breach of condition case No.8 of 2009. 1 to 3 are seriously objecting this Civil Application because the amendment sought for by adding paragraph No.7(aa) can be sought for by the applicants-original petitioners only at time of filing the main petition or at the time when the City Deputy Collector has initiated the proceedings i.e. breach of condition case No.8 of 2009. Learned AGP has also drawn attention of this Court to order dated 03.04.2014 passed by this Court in the main petition i.e. in Special Civil Application No.6987 of 2012 and submitted that just to bypass the said order and prima-facie observations made therein by the Court and also with a view to fill up the lacuna, the applicants-original petitioners herein has filed this Civil Application, seeking declaration to the effect that the applicants-original petitioners are the exclusive and absolute owners of the property, admeasuring 12396.09 Sq.Mtrs and further declare to the effect that opponents or any other authority of the Government has no right to initiate any proceedings against the applicants-original petitioners and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the City Deputy Collector, as per the notice under challenge to be quashed and set aside and so the amendment sought for should not be granted. 5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the present proceedings initiated by the City Deputy Collector is related to breach of conditions committed by respondent No.4 herein as well as by the applicants-original petitioners and they have committed the breach of provisions of the Government Resolution and the conditions mentioned in the order of the Collector dated 26.08.1980 and as the applicants-original petitioners herein have not challenged the proceedings initiated by the City Deputy Collector in the year 2009, now they cannot seek amendment in the prayer clause as well as amendment in the petition because the amendment sought for is nothing, but an attempt to bring new cause of action, which would definitely affect the proceedings, which has been remanded by the Collector vide its order dated 26.12.2011, copy of which is age page-95. 6. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. Before dealing with the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, certain glaring facts, which are as such not under dispute in my view, require to be keep in mind, while deciding the controversy arisen between the parties, in this Civil Application. 6. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. Before dealing with the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, certain glaring facts, which are as such not under dispute in my view, require to be keep in mind, while deciding the controversy arisen between the parties, in this Civil Application. 6.1 The land admeasuring 12396.09 Sq.Mtrs. of Sardarnagar known as Sardarnagar site No.1, was in possession of AUDA, who had decided to sale the said land by tender and publish the tender notice on 13.09.1987. The applicants-original petitioners submitted their bid in terms of the tender notice and was adjudged to be the highest bidder, which was accepted vide allotment letter dated 21.10.1987. The same was cancelled vide cancellation letter dated 30.03.1988, which was challenged by the applicants-original petitioners by instituting a Suit being Civil Suit No.2378 of 1988 and the said proceedings culminated into a decree in favour of the applicants-original petitioners. The AUDA has preferred First Appeal No.1080 of 2004, in which the settlement was arrived at between the parties and the appeal was withdrawn in terms thereof. The property was conveyed in favour of the applicants-original petitioners and the possession was handed over to the applicants-original petitioners on 25.09.2007 by executing a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2007. Thereafter, becoming the absolute owners of the above referred property, part of the land i.e. admeasuring 6300 Sq.Mtrs. was sold by the applicants-original petitioners in favour of Om Shree Consultant. Moreover, the applicants-original petitioners received a notice dated 26.08.2009, issued by the City Deputy Collector, asking them to remain present on 31.08.2009 for handing over possession of the land in question, which was as such issued in pursuance of the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad holding that AUDA had committed breach of terms on which the land admeasuring 1,24,687.48 Sq.Mtrs was allotted to it, of which the land of the applicants-original petitioners, which is the subject matter of the main petition, was a part. The said land was forfeited by notice dated 26.08.2009. The said land was forfeited by notice dated 26.08.2009. 6.2 It is important to note at this juncture that the applicants-original petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No.5212 of 2010, wherein, they have made averments before this Court that when the impugned order therein was passed on the basis of notice dated 13.04.2009, on the said date, AUDA was not the owner of the land, as such the AUDA had sold the said land to the applicants-original petitioners and the applicants-original petitioners were the owners of the land however, applicants-original petitioners were not served any notice by the City Deputy Collector and neither opponent No.4-AUDA intimated the applicants-original petitioners about the above referred notice and the above referred proceedings initiated by the City Deputy Collector and the applicants-original petitioners become aware of the said fact only upon the receipt of the said notice dated 31.08.2009. Above referred Special Civil Application No.5212 of 2010 was disposed of, directing the Collector to finally decide and dispose of the appeal no.293 of 2009, preferred by the applicants and pronounce the judgment at the earliest, but not later than four weeks from 26.08.2010 and till then, the ad-interim relief granted earlier was directed to be continued. Referring to the impugned order dated 26.12.2011, annexed in the main petition at Annexure-P-15, it appears that the Collector has decided the said appeal No.293 of 2009 and partly allowed the said Revision Application/appeal No.293 of 2009 and set aside the order dated 12.08.2009 of the City Deputy Collector and the case was remanded to the City Deputy Collector on the direction to issue notice to all the parties and to give full opportunity of hearing and decide the issue afresh and as referred hereinabove, the said order dated 26.12.2011 is the impugned order, which has been challenged by the applicants-original petitioners herein by preferring the main petition, seeking prayer to quash and set aside the said order dated 26.12.2011 and order of the Collector so far it directs to remand and orders the applicants-original petitioners to maintain status-quo and the notice dated 03.03.2012, issued by the City Deputy Collector in respect of the land of the applicants-original petitioners. It is important to note that while passing the order dated 03.04.2014 in the main petition, this Court has observed that prima-facie, issue involved in the main petition i.e. issue involved in Special Civil Application No.6987 of 2012 appears very limited to the effect that when the applicants-original petitioners have challenged the order of the City Deputy Collector dated 12.08.2009 passed in breach of condition case No.8 of 2009, the applicants-original petitioners preferred appeal before the Collector, Ahmedabad being Appeal No.293 of 2009 and it appears that the main grievance in the said appeal was that the Deputy Collector has not given any opportunity of hearing and accordingly, the said order of the Deputy Collector dated 12.08.2009 was challenged by the applicants-original petitioners before the Collector and as the interim order was not granted by the Collector in Appeal No.293 of 2009, the said interim order was also challenged by preferring Special Civil Application No.5212 of 2010 as referred above. 7. 7. In light of the above referred factual aspect, the applicants-original petitioners have preferred this Civil Application, seeking amendment as sought for in paragraph No.2 and paragraph No.3 as referred hereinabove to the effect that the Government has no right to initiate any proceedings against the applicants-original petitioners and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the City Deputy Collector as per the notice under challenge be quashed and set aside, is nothing, but the action on the part of the applicants-original petitioners herein to fill up the lacuna at a very later stage after the year 2009 and as such the applicants-original petitioners have preferred this Civil Application with a view to find out the shortcut, which in my view, cannot be permitted because the issue of alleged breach of condition made by opponent No.4 herein is pending before the City Deputy Collector to the effect that AUDA should follow the procedure of sale and before selling the property by auction, AUDA has to take prior permission of Collector as well as Revenue Department because the land in question is of new tenure and it cannot be sold without prior permission of the respondent authority, but opponent No.4 herein i.e. AUDA has failed to take prior permission and therefore, action taken by the AUDA as well as registered sale deed executed by the AUDA to the applicants-original petitioners, is illegal and not valid and the sale deed executed by the applicants-original petitioners to Om Shree Consultant is also not valid. So far as order dated 01.08.2013 in Civil Application No.8021 of 2013 on which the applicants-original petitioners have placed reliance is not applicable to the case on hand because of the fact that as the grievance has been made by the applicants-original petitioners that without giving opportunity, the City Deputy Collector has passed the order, which has been set aside by the Collector as referred above and remanded the matter for fresh hearing, which is the impugned order and which is yet to be tested by this Court and so it is too early to seek prayer to the effect that Government or any other authority has no right to initiate the proceedings. Moreover, I am of the view that the prayer sought for to be incorporated is not in consonance with the prayers already made in the petition which can be said to be based upon subsequent events as referred hereinabove and when the right to initiate proceeding sought to be challenged which would definitely prejudicial to opponent Nos.1 to 3. Under the circumstances narrated, and as discussed hereinabove, in my view, the present Civil Application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.