ORDER R.M CHHAYA, J.:— Heard Mr. M.A Parekh, learned advocate for the applicant - original petitioner, Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for opponent No. 1 on advance copy. 2. By way of this application, the applicant has sought review of the order dated 25.1.2016 passed in main Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No. 10728 of 2015. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to quote the prayers which are prayed for in the main petition, which are as under:- “(A) Your Lordship/s be pleased to admit/allow the present writ petition, in the interest of justice; (B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notice 30.1.12 (As per Ann. A) issued U/S 67 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 OR Alternatively, direct the respondents, herein, to withdraw the said impugned Notice, forthwith, in the interest of justice; AND FURTHER (C) Your Lordship/s may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction directing the present respondents to Allot OR to give Physical Vacant & Peaceful Possession of Final Plot No. 3 & 6 of T.P Scheme No. 32 (Gota) Ahmedabad, forthwith, in view of ORAL JUDGMENT DTD 12.1.2010 (As per Ann. F) in the interest of justice; (D) Pending, admission and final disposal of this petition, this Hon court may be pleased to restrain from implementation/operation of impugned notice at Ann. A unless & until the respondents physically allot the vacant and peaceful possession of Final Plot No. 3 & 4 of T.P Scheme No. 32 (Gota), Ahmedabad, FURTHER, be restrained the respondents, their, men, agents, servants, assignees or any person from interfering or making any hurdles or any kind of activities with the physical possession of Survey No. 3/1 & 3/4 of Moje: Gota, OR be ordered to maintain STATUS-QUO with regards physical possession of the S. No. 3/1 & 3/4 of the said land, forthwith in the interest of justice;” 3. This Court in its order dated 25.1.2016 has observed thus:- “5. As provided under Section 67(b) of the Act, rights of the petitioner are now crystallized and as per the sanctioned Scheme, even according to respondent No. 3, the petitioner has been allotted reconstituted plot being Final Plot No. 3 + 6. This Court in its order dated 25.1.2016 has observed thus:- “5. As provided under Section 67(b) of the Act, rights of the petitioner are now crystallized and as per the sanctioned Scheme, even according to respondent No. 3, the petitioner has been allotted reconstituted plot being Final Plot No. 3 + 6. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the only direction which needs to be given by this Court is to direct respondent No. 3 to implement the said Scheme in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Amarsinh Shanaji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (7) GHJ 127 , preferably within a period of six months. Mr. Parekh states that the petitioner shall cooperate with respondent No. 3 for implementing the Scheme as it is sanctioned.” 4. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the prayers prayed for in Paragraph 10(B) of this application is already dealt with and appropriate directions have been given and no case for review is made out by way of this application. Similarly, the prayers prayed for in Paragraph 10(C) is beyond the prayers prayed for in the main petition. If at all, the petitioner has any private dispute, the same has to be challenged by way of proper proceedings. The attempt on the part of the applicant to again revive the main petition, where the prayers prayed for were limited to implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, the present application is misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. However, there shall be no order as to costs. It is clarified that this order will not prejudice the rights of the applicant qua the private parties.