ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. The original petitioners, appellants herein, have preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16299 of 2010 by which the said petition has been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix of the case are as under; The petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 296 ad-measuring 4,876 sq. metres situated at Unjha, District Mehsana. In 1993 the Unjha Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the UADA”) declared its intention to develop a Town Planning Scheme u/s.42(1) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short, “the Act”). The land in question was brought within the area of the proposed town planning scheme. On 24.08.1995 the UADA submitted a Draft Town Planning Scheme to the State Government for its sanction. The State Government accorded its sanction to the Draft Scheme known as Town Planning Scheme No. 6 vide Notification dated 09.06.1999 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the sanctioned Draft Town Planning Scheme, the land belonging to the petitioners bearing original Survey No. 2 96 ad-measuring 4,876 sq. metres was proposed to be allotted Final Plot No. 207 ad-measuring 3,990 sq. metres. The Town Planning Officer issued notice to the petitioners inviting objections/suggestions on the proposed town planning scheme. It appears that no objections/suggestions were submitted by the petitioners at the relevant time. Thereafter, the Town Planning Officer forwarded a tentative reconstitution plan to the UADA vide its letter dated 06.05.2003 inviting further objections/suggestions. As per the tentative reconstitution plan, it was decided to allot Final Plot No. 189 ad-measuring 3,875 sq. metres in lieu of original Survey No. 296 ad-measuring 4,876 sq. metres (instead of Final Plot No. 207 as per the sanctioned Draft Town Planning Scheme). 4. On 09.05.2005 the Town Planning Officer declared his decision about the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and submitted the same to the State Government for sanction under the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. As per the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Town Planning Officer, instead of Final Plot No. 189, the Town Planning Officer allotted four different Final Plots viz. Final Plot Nos. 107, 224, 227 and 229, total ad-measuring 3,876 sq. As per the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Town Planning Officer, instead of Final Plot No. 189, the Town Planning Officer allotted four different Final Plots viz. Final Plot Nos. 107, 224, 227 and 229, total ad-measuring 3,876 sq. metres, in lieu of original Survey No. 296-original Final Plot No. 207. The State Government accorded sanction to the Town Planning Scheme No. 6 u/s.65 of the Act with a further modification on 05.07.2007 that as per the sanction given by the State Government, instead of four Final Plots (as proposed by the Town Planning Officer while preparing the Town Planning Scheme No. 6), it was proposed to allot Final Plot No. 294 ad-measuring 3,890 sq. metres in lieu of original Survey No. 296 - original Final Plot No. 207 to the land belonging to the petitioners. Accordingly, the State Government modified the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme to the above extent while sanctioning the Scheme. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 26785 of 2007 before this Court. By order dated 10.02.2010, the learned single Judge allowed the petition by setting aside the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 6 insofar as the land belonging to the petitioners was concerned and directed the State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter after considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Act as also the objections/suggestions, if any, that may be filed by the petitioners. 6. In pursuance of the above order, the petitioners submitted their objections/suggestions before the State Government. It is the say of the petitioners that without considering their objections/suggestions in the right perspective and without assigning any reasons, the State Government accorded sanction to the preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 6 on the same terms, vide Notification dated 02.12.2010 7. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the captioned petition before this Court seeking the following reliefs; “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the modification qua Original Plot No. 207 and Final Plot Nos. 107, 224, 227 and 229 made by the respondent no. 107, 224, 227 and 229 made by the respondent no. 1 while exercising its powers as contemplated u/s.65(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 52(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 with all consequential and incidental effects and further be pleased to direct the respondents to vary the preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Unjha accordingly. (B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from implementing the modified scheme as per the Notification dated 02.12.2010 as it is in violation of the powers contained in Section 65(1)(b). (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-10(B).” 8. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition, by impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2017 Hence, the present appeal. 9. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Desai assisted by learned advocate Mr. D.K Puj for the appellants-original petitioners, Mr. K.M Antani learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Keyur Vyas learned advocate for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Navin Pahwa learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 5 & 6. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai assailed the impugned judgment rendered by the learned single Judge mainly on the ground that the Notification dated 02.12.2010 issued by the State Government modifies the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme to a substantial extent insofar as the land belonging to the petitioners is concerned. It is contended that under the provisions of Section 65 of the Act, the State Government does not have powers to effect such modification. It was submitted that Section 65 of the Act permits modification of only those Preliminary Schemes where the State Government arrives at an opinion that such modification is necessary for correcting any error, irregularity or informality. Such powers cannot be exercised for shifting of plots of lands. By the impugned Notification, the State Government has substantially changed the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme insofar as the plots of lands belonging to the petitioners are concerned. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have set aside the Notification issued by the State Government. 11. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. By the impugned Notification, the State Government has substantially changed the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme insofar as the plots of lands belonging to the petitioners are concerned. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have set aside the Notification issued by the State Government. 11. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai further submitted that if the State Government was of the opinion that any modification was necessary in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, then it ought to have remitted the Scheme to the Town Planning Officer for reconsideration by pointing out the error/irregularities and the nature of modification required. It was submitted that when the modification effected by the State Government had the effect of changing the allotment of final plots in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, which was substantial in nature and entailed civil consequences, the petitioners ought to have been heard before issuing the impugned Notification. However, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before effecting the modification. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside. 12. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai thereafter submitted that the decision taken by the State Government to reject the representation made by the petitioners reflect non-application of mind on the part of the authority concerned inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the objections. Hence, on this ground also, the Notification issued by the State Government deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai drew our attention to relevant provisions of the Act as also the Rules framed there under. He also placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas reported in (1969) 1 SCC 509 : AIR 1969 SC 634 and also in Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2008) 4 SCC 144 . 14. On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Keyur Vyas learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Navin Pahwa learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 5 & 6, supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge and submitted that the learned single Judge was completely justified in dismissing the petition. It was, therefore, prayed that the present appeal may also be dismissed. 15. 4 and Mr. Navin Pahwa learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 5 & 6, supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge and submitted that the learned single Judge was completely justified in dismissing the petition. It was, therefore, prayed that the present appeal may also be dismissed. 15. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it transpires that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 296 ad-measuring 4,876 sq. metres situated at Unjha, District Mehsana. In the year 1993, the UADA declared its intention to develop a Town Planning Scheme. The Draft Town Planning Scheme was accorded sanction by the State Government and thereafter, the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme was prepared. In the approved Draft Town Planning Scheme, the land belonging to the petitioners bearing original Survey No. 2 96 admeasuring 4,876 sq. metres was allotted original Final Plot No. 207 ad-measuring 3,990 sq metres. Thereafter, the Town Planning Officer prepared a tentative reconstitution plan and as per the said tentative reconstitution plan, it was decided to allot Final Plot No. 189 ad-measuring 3,875 sq. metres in lieu of original Survey No. 296 - original Final Plot No. 207. However, the Town Panning Officer declared his decision on Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 6 whereby, it was decided to allot four different Final Plots, viz. Final Plot Nos. 107, 224, 227 and 229, total ad-measuring 3,876 sq. metres, in lieu of original Survey No. 296 - original Final Plot No. 207 instead of Final Plot No. 189 (as per the tentative reconstitution plan). 16. When the aforesaid proposal was forwarded to the State Government for its sanction u/s.65 of the Act, it was modified whereby, the petitioners were allotted Final Plot No. 294 ad-measuring 3,890 sq. metres in lieu of original Survey No. 296 - original Final Plot No. 207. However, the said decision was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 26785 of 2007 and by order dated 10.02.2010, the learned single Judge set aside the aforesaid modification on the ground that no objections/suggestions had been considered before effecting modification in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. metres in lieu of original Survey No. 296 - original Final Plot No. 207. However, the said decision was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 26785 of 2007 and by order dated 10.02.2010, the learned single Judge set aside the aforesaid modification on the ground that no objections/suggestions had been considered before effecting modification in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. Thereafter, as directed by the learned single Judge, the State Government considered the objections/suggestions filed by the petitioners but, stood to its earlier decision by passing the order dated 02.12.2010, which was under challenge in the captioned petition. 17. For deciding the controversy on hand, a reference to the provisions of Sections 17 & 65 of the Act is apposite. They read as under; “17. Power of State Government to sanction draft development plan: (1)(a) On receipt of the draft development plan under section 16, the State Government may, by notification- (i) &… (ii) return the draft development plan and the regulations to the area development authority or, as the case may be, to the authorised officer, for modifying the plan and the regulations in such manner as it may direct: Provided that, where the State Government is of 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 this sub-clause, publish the modifications so considered necessary in the Official Gazette along with 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;” 65. Power of Government to sanction or refuse to sanction the scheme and effect of sanction.- (1) On receipt of the preliminary scheme, or as the case may be, the final scheme, the State Government may- (a) in the case of preliminary scheme, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt, and (b) in the case of a final scheme, within a period of three months from the date of its receipt, by notification, sanction the preliminary scheme or the final scheme or refuse to give sanction, provided that in sanctioning any such scheme, the State Government may make such modifications as may, in its opinion, be necessary for the purpose of correcting an error, irregularity or informality. (2) Whether the State Government sanctions the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, it shall state in the notification- (a) the place at which the scheme shall be kept open for inspection by the public, and (b) a date in which all the liabilities created by the scheme shall come into force: Provided that the State Government may from time to time extend such date, by notification, by such period, not exceeding three months at a time, as it thinks fit. (3) On and after the date fixed in such notification, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, as the case may be, shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act. (4) The appropriate authority shall, after the preliminary scheme is sanctioned by the State Government under sub-section (2), complete the execution of such scheme within a period of two years from the date of the sanction of such scheme, failing which the State Government may take such actions against appropriate authority as it deems fit.” 18. According to Section 65 of the Act, the State Government has to arrive at an opinion that a modification in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme is necessary for correcting an error, irregularity or informality. On careful consideration of the material on record, we find that the Town Planning Officer seriously erred in allotting four different Final Plots, viz. Final Plot Nos. 107, 224, 227 and 229, in lieu of original Final Plot No. 207. In the Draft Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government, the petitioners were allotted Final Plot No. 207 in respect of their land bearing Survey No. 2 96. Final Plot Nos. 107, 224, 227 and 229, in lieu of original Final Plot No. 207. In the Draft Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government, the petitioners were allotted Final Plot No. 207 in respect of their land bearing Survey No. 2 96. However, the Town Planning Officer allotted four different Final Plots to the petitioners and that to in an area which had been ear-marked by the UADA for sale for commercial purposes. 19. Now, as per the modification made by the State Government u/s.65 of the Act, the aforesaid four Final Plots were to be allotted to the UADA for sale for commercial purpose and the petitioners were allotted Final Plot No. 2 94 with some lesser area. In our opinion, when the petitioners have been allotted Final Plot No. 294 on their original survey number, they will not be prejudiced in any manner on account of the modifications made by the State Government in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. When the State Government has rectified the error committed by the Town Planning Officer, it was not necessary for the State Government to remit the matter to the Town Planning Officer for reconsideration. Under the provisions of the Act, the State Government is empowered to effect such modification. 20. A contention was also raised by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai that the State Government has not granted any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the order dated 02.12.2010 and thereby, the order is bad in law. However, the said contention is misconceived. In the judgment and order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 26785 of 2007, the State Government was directed to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law and on merits after considering the objections/suggestions made by the petitioners. The said order has not been challenged and it has attained finality. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the State Government ought not to have taken the impugned decision or for that matter, the proposed modification was required to be sent to the Town Planning Officer for reconsideration. Therefore also, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that no opportunity of personal hearing was given by the State Government before issuing the impugned Notification. 21. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Therefore also, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that no opportunity of personal hearing was given by the State Government before issuing the impugned Notification. 21. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai are concerned, there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down therein. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforesaid discussion, none of the decisions relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai would be of any assistance to the petitioners. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the State Government has not made any substantial change in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, as contended by the petitioners. When the Town Planning Officer materially erred in allotting four different Final Plots to the petitioners, the State Government was justified in rectifying the error by modifying the preliminary Town Planning Scheme in exercise of powers u/s.65 of the Act and by doing so, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. Hence, the learned single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the petition. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasonings recorded by the learned single Judge, we find no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of.