JUDGMENT Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is the judgment dated 1.8.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13869 of 2010. 1.1 In the above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the basic prayer of the petitioners was to seek declaration about zoning certificate issued to the petitioners showing that the land of the petitioners being revenue survey No. 160 of village Abhwa, District Surat as being reserved for Airport Complex of Civil Aviation Department (T-28) is bad and illegal and accordingly, appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and further, inter alia, it was prayed to declare that there is no reservation of the land in question as mentioned hereinabove. 1.2 In short, the petitioners challenged exercise of the powers by the authority under section 17 of the Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 ("TP & UD Act 1976" for short). 2. Before the learned Single Judge, various contentions were raised on law as well as on facts that when the final notification dated 2.9.2004 was published, in item No. 26, subject land in question was not included in the reservation for Airport Complex of Civil Aviation Department (T-28) and even the numbers which are mentioned in item No. 26 only show that the land bearing survey numbers mentioned in above item No. 26 have been added to reservation of Airport Complex of Civil Aviation Department (T-28) as per section 12(2)(a) of the TP & UD Act 1976. Prior to that notification dated 17.5.2001 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under section 17 of the TP & UD Act 1976, indisputably, the land in question designated for agricultural use came to be deleted and released as such and redesignated for residential use under section 12(2)(a) of the TP & UD Act 1976. Prior to that notification dated 17.5.2001 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under section 17 of the TP & UD Act 1976, indisputably, the land in question designated for agricultural use came to be deleted and released as such and redesignated for residential use under section 12(2)(a) of the TP & UD Act 1976. 2.1 Thus, at the stage of issuance of the notification dated 17.5.2001 whereby the reference was made to revenue survey No. 160 of the petitioners, no occasion had arisen to raise any objection or make any suggestion since it was only change of usage i.e. from agriculture to residential one to which petitioners had no grievance either of making representation, raising any objection or even suggestion against change of usage, subject land of the petitioners later on was placed in reservation for Airport Complex by notification dated 2.9.2004 and, therefore, a question had arisen about constitutional right of the petitioners i.e. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis exercise of power under section 17 of the TP & UD Act 1976 and upon consideration of rival submissions, perusal of the record of the case, in the backdrop of pleadings filed by the parties, the learned Single Judge found clear breach of the provisions of section 17(2) of the TP & UD Act 1976 and that before placing the land of the petitioners, i.e. revenue survey No. 160 under reservation for the purpose of Airport Complex (T-28) for Civil Aviation Department, petitioners had no opportunity to raise any objection or making any suggestion etc. and the petition came to be allowed as prayed for with declaration that zoning certificate issued to the petitioners showing the land of the petitioners being revenue survey No. 160 of village Abhwa, District Surat as reserved for Aerodrome Complex for Civil Aviation Department does not reflect correct position and, therefore, it was held to be patently bad with no legal force. Further declaration was made that there was no reservation of the above subject land having no mention made in the final development plan published vide notification dated 2.9.2004 and consequently, no question arises for showing the same as being under reservation for the purpose of zoning certificate. 3. Further declaration was made that there was no reservation of the above subject land having no mention made in the final development plan published vide notification dated 2.9.2004 and consequently, no question arises for showing the same as being under reservation for the purpose of zoning certificate. 3. While assailing the above judgment of the learned Single Judge, Shri P.S. Champaneri, learned counsel appearing for the Airport Authority of India - appellant and original respondent No. 4 would contend that if full text of the notification dated 2.9.2014 published by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of Government of Gujarat under the provisions of section 17 of the TP & UD Act 1976 is seen whereby exercise of power conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the TP & UD Act 1976 finalizes the notification issued and further sanctioned the said revised development plan and regulations thereto subject to the modification so finalized and as set out in the schedule appended thereto. Thus, what is stated in item No. 26 of the schedule refers to various survey numbers reserved for recreation and the lands therein to be utilized from respective uses and shall be added to reservation of Aerodrome Complex of Civil Aviation Department (T-28) and such plan Nos. 3 and 4 earmarked as ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZA included land of revenue survey No. 160 of the respondents/original petitioners. It is further contended that reservation of the land in question is for public purpose and mere error of not mentioning particular survey number like 160 of the petitioners by itself would not be such error resulting into reservation as patently bad or illegal and careful perusal of the notification dated 2.9.2004 by any affected person would give an opportunity to raise objection particularly when earlier the land in question in exercise of power by which modifications were made and resultantly, it was shifted from agriculture to residential use. 3.1 Thus, according to Shri P.S. Champaneri, learned counsel for the appellant, non-mentioning of revenue survey No. 160 of private respondent will not be fatal inasmuch as map/sketch annexed to the schedule shows definite marking of the area reserved for Aerodrome Complex of Civil Aviation Department (T-28). Accordingly, it is submitted that order impugned of the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Accordingly, it is submitted that order impugned of the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned AGP appearing for the State authorities has adopted almost similar line of arguments and submitted that when the notifications were issued earlier under sections 13 and 17 of the TP & UD Act 1976, proper care and vigilance on the part of the private respondent of verifying and ascertaining revenue survey number belonging to them would have made available an opportunity to represent the case by raising the objection. It is submitted that when there are more than 200 items in the schedule, some inadvertence may take place and this is mistake of typographical in nature at the most for which the notification by which land reserved for public purpose i.e. for Aerodrome Complex ought not to have been quashed and set aside and accordingly, interference of this Court is solicited. 5. Shri S.H. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. original petitioners would contend that at no stage of exercise of powers by the respective authorities i.e. Surat Urban Development Authority and the Department of Urban Housing and Urban Development of the State of Gujarat, any opportunity was available to them either to raise objection or to give any suggestion with regard to reservation. It is submitted that at the initial stage when usage of the land in question was changed from agriculture to residence and the notification dated 17.5.2000 issued by the authority in this regard, land of the petitioners was no doubt shown at item No. 112 but so long as agriculture use came to be deleted and it was designated for residence purpose under section 12(2)(a)of the TP & UD Act 1976, the petitioners had no grievance whatsoever and hence, no objection was raised. Only when the final revised development plan came to be published vide impugned notification dated 2.9.2004, subject land i.e. revenue survey No. 160 was not shown in the said notification. Only when the final revised development plan came to be published vide impugned notification dated 2.9.2004, subject land i.e. revenue survey No. 160 was not shown in the said notification. Item No. 26 to the schedule of the above notification whereby land of other villages along with the land of the petitioners were placed under reservation, the same do not show any such survey No. 160 and simply map attached to the notification includes that area will not be sufficient compliance of requirement of law when the petitioners are deprived of usage of land, constitutional right available to them under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and, therefore, thread bare discussion of the Act as well as law by the learned Single Judge granting relief to the petitioners as prayed for by assigning reasons and findings as well as conclusion based on such findings do not warrant any interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5.1 Learned senior counsel also refers to his cross objections filed in this appeal and various decisions of the Apex Court about right of land owners vis-à-vis procedure to be followed in accordance with law by the authority in case the land is to be taken away or acquired as per the provisions of the said statute and it is submitted that in the present case, clear breach of the provisions of the TP & UD Act 1976 has surfaced on record and accordingly, order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be sustained. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record of the case and full text of the notification dated 2.9.2004 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of Government of Gujarat placed on record, we find that in the notification as above, schedule contains 203 items and at serial No. 26, reference is made about reservation of Aerodrome Complex for Civil Aviation Department (T-28) which reads as under. "The lands bearing R.S. No. 505/p of Abhva, R.S. No. 50, 51/p, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 51/2/p, 51/4A, 51/4B, 87/p, 87/p, etc., of Bhimpor, R.S. No. 396 to 398/p, 404 to 410/p, 411/p, 412, 413/p, 414 to 445 etc. of village Dumas, designated for Agriculture use, Residential use, Recreational use, 45.0 wide roads, 24.0 wide roads, 60.0 mt. wide roads, reserved for Recreation (O-61) for SUDA. of village Dumas, designated for Agriculture use, Residential use, Recreational use, 45.0 wide roads, 24.0 wide roads, 60.0 mt. wide roads, reserved for Recreation (O-61) for SUDA. Educational complex (P-93) for SUDA and Public Housing (H-35) for Gujarat Housing Board shall be released from respective uses and shall be added to the reservation of Aerodrame Complex for Civil Aviation Department (T-28) as per Section 12(2)(k) of the Act as shown on accompanying Plan No. 3 & 4 earmarked as ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZA." 6.1 For the sake of convenience paras 11 to 15 of the judgment under challenge are reproduced for better understanding of the reasoning, findings and conclusions of learned Single Judge. "11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the subject land can be said to have been reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department) under the Notification dated 2nd September, 2004. In the present case, as noted earlier, in the Notification dated 17th May, 2001 inviting suggestions and objections under section 17(1) of the Town Planning Act, the subject land was designated for residential use. However, in the final revised development plan, published vide Notification dated 2nd September, 2004, the subject land is not mentioned anywhere. It may be recalled that it is the case of the respondents that since the subject land is shown as earmarked for the above purpose in the part plan accompanying both the above notifications, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act, inasmuch as, the petitioners are deemed to have notice regarding the subject land having been reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department). Reliance has been placed by the respondents upon the provisions of Sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Town Planning Act which lays down that alongwith the draft development plan, the following particulars shall be published namely, (a) a statement indicating broadly the uses to which lands in the area covered by the plan are proposed to be put and any survey carried out for the preparation of the draft development plan; (b) maps, charts and statements explaining the provisions of the draft development plan; (c) the draft regulations for enforcing the provisions of the draft development plan; (d) procedure explaining the manner in which permission for developing any land may be obtained from the area development authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer; (e) a statement of the stage of development by which it is proposed to meet any obligation imposed on the area development authority by the draft development plan; and (f) an approximate estimate of the cost involved in acquisition of land reserved for public purposes. Emphasis has been laid on clause (b) thereof namely, maps, charts and statements explaining the provisions of the draft development plan to submit that in the accompanying map, the subject land is shown to be reserved for the above purpose. 12. At this juncture reference may be made to the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Town Planning Act, which provides that where the State Government is of the opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations are necessary, the State Government may, instead of returning them to the area development authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer under the sub-clause, publish the modifications so considered necessary in the Official Gazette alongwith a notice in the prescribed manner inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications within a period of two months from the date of publication of such notice. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 17, provides that where the State Government has published the modification considered necessary in a draft development plan as required under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the State Government shall, before according sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations, take into consideration the suggestions or objections that may have been received thereto, and thereafter accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations in such modified form as it may consider fit. Clause (d) provides that the sanction accorded in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) shall be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette and the draft development plan together with the regulations so sanctioned shall be called the final development plan. 13. In the present case, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 17(1) of the Town Planning Act has published a modification which it considered necessary in the draft development plan on 17th May, 2001 inviting suggestions and objections wherein the subject land was shown to be designated for residential purpose. It may be that in the accompanying part plan, the subject land may be shown to have been reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex for Civil Aviation Department (T-28); however, that cannot be said to be sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 13 of the Town Planning Act. In the opinion of this court, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Town Planning Act which mandates that the draft development plan shall, inter alia, provide for (a) proposals for designating the use of land for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural and recreation purposes, and (b) proposals for the reservation of land for the public purposes specified thereunder, the reservation of the subject land for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department) ought to have been reflected in the notification itself. In the present case, it is an admitted position, as is clear on a perusal of the Notification dated 17th May, 2005, that the subject land which was earlier designated for "Agricultural Use" was deleted from the said use and was designated for "Residential Use". However, in the part plan the subject land was shown as included in the reservation for Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department). However, in the part plan the subject land was shown as included in the reservation for Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department). Thus, while in the Notification dated 17th May, 2005 the subject land is shown as designated for residential use, in the accompanying part plan the same is shown as included in the reservation for the above purpose. In this regard it cannot be gainsaid that once the subject land is shown in the notification to be designated for residential use, there would be no occasion for the petitioners to look into the part plan and to verify whether it is reserved for any other purpose. If at all the intention of the respondents was to reserve the subject land for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department), the same is not borne out from the notification issued under section 17 of the Town Planning Act. It may be that this may have occurred on account of some error on the part of the respondent authorities, however, even if that be so, such error is on the part of the respondent authorities and goes to the root of the matter as the same amounts to noncompliance of the provisions of section 13 of the Town Planning Act. Besides, a citizen cannot be expected to look into the part plan accompanying the draft development plan for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether or not his land is placed under reservation, more so, when in the body of the notification inviting suggestions and objections, the same is shown to be designated for residential use. The natural conduct of a person whose lands find a mention in the notification would be to look at the contents of the notification and thereafter, if necessary, look into the accompanying part plan. However, if the person is satisfied with the designation of his land in the notification itself, he may not look into the accompanying part plan. In the present case, when the subject land was shown to be designated for the purpose of "Residential Use" and was not shown to be reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex for Civil Aviation Department (T-28), the question of the petitioners looking into the accompanying part plan for ascertaining as to whether or not the same was reserved for the said purpose would not arise. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents, that since the subject land was shown in the part plan to be reserved for the aforesaid purpose, the provisions of the Town Planning Act stand substantially complied with, does not merit acceptance. 14. Moreover, apart from the fact that in the draft development plan published vide notification dated 17th May, 2001 inviting suggestions and objections, the subject land was shown to be designated for residential use, in the final development plan which has been sanctioned under clause (d) of section 17(1) of the Town Planning Act also, the subject land is not shown to be reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department). Here also, it is the case of the respondents that the land is shown to be reserved for the aforesaid purpose in the part plan. In this regard, a perusal of the Notification dated 2nd September, 2004 reveals that the subject land does not find a mention therein, but, in the accompanying part plan it is shown to be included for the purpose of reservation of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department). However, unless the subject land is shown in the notification under section 17(1) of the Town Planning Act as reserved for the above purpose, merely because the same finds a reference in the part plan published alongwith the development plan, it cannot be said that the said land is so reserved in the final development plan. The contention, therefore, that the subject lands are deemed to be reserved for the above purpose by virtue of notification dated 2nd September, 2004 does not merit acceptance. When the notification issued under section 17(1) of the Town Planning Act, does not mention the subject land as being reserved for Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department), nothing more can be read into it with reference to the part plan published therewith for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the subject land is also put under such reservation. It is for the respondents to ensure that there is due compliance with the provisions of the Town Planning Act, and for their failure in duly complying with the provisions thereof, the respondents cannot be permitted to throw the burden on the petitioners by contending that it was the duty of the petitioners to ascertain from the part plan as to whether or not the subject land was put under reservation for the above purpose. Under the circumstances, the Zoning Certificate issued by SUDA showing that the subject land is reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex for Civil Aviation Department is clearly contrary to the actual position, because the subject land has not been placed under reservation for the said purpose. 15. Assuming for the sake of argument that the submission of the respondents that in the part plan accompanying the final development plan, the subject land is shown to be reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department) were to be accepted, even then, the statutory requirements of section 17 of the Town Planning Act cannot be said to have been satisfied, inasmuch as, in the notification issued under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 17(1), the subject land was shown to be designated for residential purpose. Under the circumstances, when the subject land was designated for residential purpose, the petitioners had no occasion to raise any objections in respect of reservation of subject land for the above purpose. Thus, the petitioners were clearly deprived of an opportunity of raising objections in that regard. Therefore, also it cannot be said that there was due compliance with the provisions of the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 17(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, the contention of the respondents that the subject land is reserved for the purpose of Aerodrome Complex (T-28) (for Civil Aviation Department) cannot be accepted." 6.2 We have given opportunity to learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as State Government to produce any correction or corrigendum available by which inclusion of revenue survey No. 160 of the private respondents appears. In spite of efforts, no such corrigendum appears on record and barring the above notification dated 2.9.2004 so considered by the learned Single Judge about no reference or inclusion of revenue survey No. 160 appears on record. In spite of efforts, no such corrigendum appears on record and barring the above notification dated 2.9.2004 so considered by the learned Single Judge about no reference or inclusion of revenue survey No. 160 appears on record. 6.3 At the cost of repetition, now it remains undisputed that while exercising powers under provisions of clause (d) of section 17(1) of the TP and UD Act, 1976, no opportunity was available to the private respondents to raise any objections or to make suggestion and, therefore, holding the notification impugned in the writ petition as patently illegal and bad in law by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be contrary to facts or in any manner not appreciating the factual position of law warranting any interference by this Court. 7. In absence of merit, appeal is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 8. At this stage, Shri P.S. Champaneri, learned counsel for the Airport Authority of India - appellant herein requests to continue interim relief granted by this Court on 24.3.2014 passed in Civil Application (for stay) No. 742 of 2014 for a period of four weeks so as to enable the appellant to approach the Apex Court is opposed by Shri S.H. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Considering all the facts and circumstances and that interim relief is in operation for a period about two years, we deem it to continue for a period of four weeks only.