JUDGMENT : B.M. Trivedi, J. 1. Both the petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), and therefore were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner - trust by way of present petition has challenged the order dated 03/05-06/1992 passed by the District Collector (Annexure 'M') and the order dated 02.01.2002 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (Annexure 'O') and has further prayed to hold that the petitioner Trust was the absolute owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No. 29 forming part of final Plot No. 6 of Village Thaltej, District and Sub-district Ahmedabad. 3. As per the case of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 683 of 2002, the petitioner is a public charitable trust formed with the object to spread education and create awareness amongst the people at large regarding Naturopathy therapy. The Thaltej Gram Panchayat had executed a gift deed dated 04.07.1962 (Annexure 'A') in favour of the petitioner trust, whereby the land admeasuring 6 acres 12 gunthas forming part of Survey No. 47, and the land admeasuring 3 acres and 28 gunthas bearing survey No. 30 of village Thaltej was gifted to the petitioner. The said gift deed was executed after obtaining the permission of the District Collector as per the order dated 24.04.1962 and after observing other necessary formalities. Since then the petitioner had obtained full title of ownership and occupation of the said two parcels of the land. It appears that thereafter the said order dated 24.04.1962 was modified by the District Collector by passing the order dated 31.03.1971 (Annexure 'B'), whereby the land admeasuring 1 acre out of the Survey No. 47, land admeasuring 2 acres and 8 gunthas out of the survey No. 29 and land admeasuring 3 acres 28 gunthas out of survey No. 30, totaling land admeasuring 6 acres 36 gunthas was granted to the petitioner subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned in the earlier order dated 24.04.1962. Thus, instead of the original grant of 10 acres under the gift deed at Annexure 'A', the petitioner was granted the land admeasuring 6 acres 36 gunthas as per the details given in the Annexure 'C'. The petitioner thereafter, put up substantial construction of hospital, maternity home, Naturopathy centre etc. on the said land for carrying out the activities of the trust. The petitioner thereafter, put up substantial construction of hospital, maternity home, Naturopathy centre etc. on the said land for carrying out the activities of the trust. It is further the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 31.03.1971, an entry No. 3882 dated 28.12.1971 (Annexure 'D') was posted in the record of rights indicating that the petitioner was the occupier of the land described therein. The said entry was certified on 02.04.1972. The said three parcels of land were included in the town planning scheme No. Thaltej-2 and the town planning authority vide the communication dated 21.07.1983 (Annexure 'E') had intimated the petitioner in the prescribed Form - J, that in lieu of the aforesaid three parcels of land admeasuring 27,570 sq. mtrs., the petitioner trust was allotted one final plot bearing No. 6 admeasuring 19,517 sq. mtrs. The said scheme was sanctioned by the Town Planning Officer vide the communication dated 19.01.1984 (Annexure 'F') issued in the prescribed Form - K, wherein it was again confirmed that the petitioner trust was allotted final Plot No. 6 admeasuring 19,517 sq. mtrs. Thereafter, the petitioner trust was served with the notice dated 11.02.1987 (Annexure 'G') under Section 67 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') with regard to the transfer of possession of land as per the allotment of final plot No. 6 and directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of land which was vested in the authority for public purpose. A further notice dated 16.10.1987 (Annexure 'H') was issued by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), under Section 68 of the said Act read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules). According to the petitioner, a revised village survey was carried out by the city survey authority and Inquiry Officer, confirming by the order dated 12.10.1988 (Annexure 'L') that the petitioner trust was the owner and occupier of the final plot No. 6. 4. However, it appears that the Government in Revenue Department passed a resolution allotting the land admeasuring 3000 sq. mtrs. from original survey No. 29 paiki, final plot No. 6 to the respondent No. 1 - Lok Prakashan Limited for the purpose of constructing office and godown for its daily called 'Gujarat Samachar'. 4. However, it appears that the Government in Revenue Department passed a resolution allotting the land admeasuring 3000 sq. mtrs. from original survey No. 29 paiki, final plot No. 6 to the respondent No. 1 - Lok Prakashan Limited for the purpose of constructing office and godown for its daily called 'Gujarat Samachar'. The respondent - District Collector, Ahmedabad also therefore passed the consequential order dated 03/05-06/1992 granting the said land to the respondent No. 1 on new and impartiable basis. The Government in Revenue Department also passed the resolution dated 20.11.1993 granting further land of 2000 sq. mtrs. of Survey No. 29 paiki to the respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the said orders only in 1995 when some persons from the respondent No. 1 - Company came to the land belonging to the petitioner trust. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order dated 03/05-06/1992 passed by the respondent Collector by filing Special Civil Application No. 10482 of 1995. The said petition came to be disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 27.06.2000, whereby the petitioner was directed to make representation/appeal to the Government. The petitioner having filed the representation cum appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), the same came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.01.2002 (Annexure 'O'). The petitioner therefore being aggrieved by the said order has preferred the petition being Special Civil Application No. 683 of 2002. 5. It appears that the petition being Special Civil Application No. 10593 of 2002 also came to be filed by the petitioners, challenging the said order of Secretary (Appeals) on the ground that the said petitioners had become the owners by adverse possession in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 29. According to the said petitioners, the petitioners were occupying the land bearing Survey No. 29 admeasuring 2 acres 8 gunthas since more than 40 years and had also constructed residential units thereon. The respondent No. 5 in the said petition i.e. (Vasant Nature Cure Hospital and Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust - the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 683 of 2002), had also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 525 of 1979 against the petitioners seeking their eviction from the Survey No. 29, which Suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural) by judgment and decree dated 30.07.1988. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the said petitioners had preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1988, which came to be allowed by the District Court, Ahmedabad vide the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1997. The respondent No. 5 - Trust therefore had preferred Second Appeal being No. 84 of 1997 before the High Court. The said appeal came to be allowed. The S.L.P. filed by the said petitioners before the Supreme Court also came to be dismissed. However, the said petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). The said petition was heard with Special Civil Application No. 683 of 2002. 6. The Special Civil Application No. 683 of 2002 has been resisted by the respondent No. 1 by filing affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that the respondent No. 1 was granted 3000 sq. mtrs. unutilized government land at Thaltej from final Plot No. 6 as per the communication dated 03.05.1992 and as per Government Resolution dated 14.08.1991 and that the said respondent No. 1 had made payment of Rs. 6,75,000/- on 10.05.1992. According to the said respondent, he was not aware about the dispute between the petitioner trust and the Government, and therefore had accepted the said grant of the land. According to the said respondent, if the grant of the said land in favour of the respondent No. 1 was not feasible, the Government be directed to reconsider the grant of some other land to the respondent No. 1. 7. The learned advocate Mr. M.C. Bhatt for the petitioner trust taking the Court to the various documents on record, submitted that the town planning scheme having come into force in respect of village Thaltej, the petitioner was allotted final plot No. 6 in lieu of Survey No. 29, 30 and 47-B as per the form prescribed in Rule 26(9) of the said Rules. Relying upon the provisions contained in the said Act, more particularly, Section 65, he submitted that the preliminary scheme or the final scheme as the case may be, has the effect as if it were enacted in the Act itself, and therefore, the same could not be varied by any authority except the authority prescribed under the Act. Relying upon the provisions contained in the said Act, more particularly, Section 65, he submitted that the preliminary scheme or the final scheme as the case may be, has the effect as if it were enacted in the Act itself, and therefore, the same could not be varied by any authority except the authority prescribed under the Act. He further submitted pressing into the service to Section 70 of the said Act that if there was any error, illegality or infirmity in the scheme, the appropriate authority had to apply to the State Government for variation of the scheme and the defect if any, in the scheme, could be removed by the State Government only. According to Mr. Bhatt, by passing the impugned order of granting land out of the Survey No. 29 to the respondent No. 1, the District Collector had acted without any authority or law, inasmuch as, the said land forming part of final Plot No. 6 was allotted to the petitioner trust under the Town Planning Scheme, and could not have been allotted to the respondent No. 1. However, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shelat for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 1 having been granted the land out of survey No. 29 and the respondent No. 1 having also been paid up the amount as directed by the Collector, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get possession of the said land or in the alternative, the land at any other location. 8. The learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi submitted that an anomaly appears to have arisen on account of the orders passed by the District Collector initially on 24.04.1962 and on 31.03.1971. According to him, the Thaltej Gram Panchayat had never executed any gift deed in favour of the petitioner trust pursuant to the order dated 31.03.1971 passed by the Collector modifying the earlier order dated 24.04.1962, and therefore, the land bearing survey No. 29 had vested in the Government, and as a result of thereof part of survey No. 29 was allotted to the respondent No. 1. 9. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that initially the District Collector, Ahmedabad had passed the order dated 24.04.1962, permitting the Thaltej Gram Panchayat to allot the land admeasuring 10 acres from survey No. 47, 29 and 30 to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions. However, the Thaltej Gram Panchayat had executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring 3 acres 28 gunthas of survey No. 30, and 6 acres 12 gunthas of survey No. 47 on 04.07.1962. The said order dated 24.04.1962 came to be modified by the District Collector vide the order dated 31.03.1971 permitting to allot the petitioner trust the land admeasuring 1 acres of survey No. 47, 2 acres 8 gunthas of survey No. 29 and 3 acres 28 gunthas of survey No. 30, in aggregate 6 acres 36 gunthas. An entry bearing No. 3882 also came to be posted in the village form No. 6 on 28.12.1971 giving details about the order dated 31.03.1971. However, the Thaltej Gram Panchayat had never executed any gift deed in favour of the petitioner with regard to the survey No. 29. According to the State Government as a result thereof, the land bearing Survey No. 29 had remained with the State Government. However, on the Town Planning Scheme No. 2, Thaltej having been proposed, the petitioner was informed in the prescribed form 'J' on 21.07.1983 that the petitioner was allotted final plot No. 6 admeasuring 19517 sq. mtrs. in lieu of original Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 19 paiki and survey No. 29, 39 and 47-B totaling admeasuring 27,570 sq. mtrs. as mentioned therein. The said scheme was finalized on 29.12.1986. The petitioner thereafter was informed by the AUDA vide the notice dated 11.02.1987 under Section 68 and 69 of the said Act read with 33 and 34 of the said Rules calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land which was not allotted to it from Survey No. 29P, 30, 47/B and the land which had vested in the authority for public purpose. The AUDA had also again vide the notice dated 16.10.1987 reiterated that the final plot No. 6 was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the original plot as per the T.P. Scheme (Final) and calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land which had vested in the Government for the public purpose as per the sketch annexed thereto. Despite the said position, the District Collector vide the impugned order dated 03/05-06/1992 allotted the land admeasuring 3000 sq. mtrs. of land out of survey No. 29 paiki, final Plot No. 6 paiki to the respondent No. 1. The said order has also been confirmed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by the order dated 02.01.2002, which is under challenge before this Court. 10. Now from the bare reading of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the said Act, it appears that where the State Government sanctions the preliminary scheme or the final scheme as the case may be, it shall state in the notification the place at which the scheme shall be kept open for inspection by the public, and the date on which all liabilities created by the scheme shall come into force. It is also provided that on and after the date fixed in the such notification, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme as the case may be shall have effect as if it were enacted in the Act. Section 70 provides that if after the preliminary scheme or the final scheme has come into force, the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective on account of an error, irregularity or informality, the appropriate authority may apply in writing to the State Government for the variation of the scheme. Hence, in the instant case, the Town Planning Scheme No. 2 having been finalized on 29.12.1986, the same had the effect as if it was enacted in the Act itself in view of Section 65(3) and that no variation in the scheme was permissible except as provided in Section 70 of the said Act. Hence, in the instant case, the Town Planning Scheme No. 2 having been finalized on 29.12.1986, the same had the effect as if it was enacted in the Act itself in view of Section 65(3) and that no variation in the scheme was permissible except as provided in Section 70 of the said Act. The petitioner having been allotted final plot No. 6 under the Town Planning Scheme finalized under the Act, the District Collector as such had ceased to have any authority to allot the land bearing survey No. 29 paiki to the respondent No. 1, which land had become part of final plot No. 6 allotted to the petitioner under the said scheme. The District Collector therefore had no authority to allot any land which had become part of final plot No. 6 constituted under the Final T.P. Scheme, as sought to be done by the impugned order dated 03.05-06.1992 (Annexure 'M'). The learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi had also failed to point out as to under which provisions of the said Act, such an allotment of land from final plot No. 6, could have been made by the District Collector, without making any variation in the scheme, which had become part of the Act. Under the circumstances, the said order dated 03.05-06.1992 passed by the District Collector being without any authority of law, deserves to be set aside. The impugned order dated 02.01.2002 passed by the S.S.R.D. confirming the said order passed by the Collector also therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. As regards the submissions of Mr. Shelat that the respondent No. 1 should be granted some other land in liue of the said land granted by the District Collector, it is observed that it will be open for the respondent No. 1 to make fresh application in that regard, and it will be open for the respondent - State to consider the same in accordance with law. 12. So far as the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 10593 of 2002 are concerned, as stated hereinabove, the said petitioners having no right on the land allotted to the petitioner trust, and the said petitioners having lost all the legal proceedings upto Supreme Court, could not be said to have any right in the land in question. 12. So far as the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 10593 of 2002 are concerned, as stated hereinabove, the said petitioners having no right on the land allotted to the petitioner trust, and the said petitioners having lost all the legal proceedings upto Supreme Court, could not be said to have any right in the land in question. The said petitioners were also not the party in the proceedings before the Secretary (Appeals), and therefore, did not have any locus standi to file the petition. Hence, the petition at their instance deserves to be dismissed. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03/05-06/1992 passed by the Collector and the order dated 02.01.2002 passed by the S.S.R.D. are quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Application No. 683 of 2002 is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the said petition. Special Civil Application No. 10593 of 2002 is dismissed and Rule is discharged in the same.