JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition was initially filed by two petitioners Sushil Alkeshbhai Agrawal and Dineshbhai Balkrishna Gor, however, during the course of hearing, the learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gandhi for the petitioners had sought permission to delete the name of petitioner No. 1 – Sushil Alkeshbhai Agrawal from the cause title of the petition by stating that he was only the Banakhat holder. Accordingly, the permission having been granted vide order dated 26.09.2018, the name of petitioner No. 1 had stood deleted. 2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of Mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forthwith handover the possession of the land bearing Final Plot No. 88 against the original plot No. 56, and in the alternative, to direct the respondent Corporation to hand over any other suitable land in the very area on the approval by the petitioner. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, the land bearing Survey No. 255 admeasuring 27,620 sq. mtrs. belonged to one Vallabhbhai Manjibhai and others. The said survey number was covered under the Town Planning scheme and was given original Plot No. 56. Thereafter, the said original plot was reconstituted as the Final Plot No. 88 admeasuring 20,911 sq. mtrs. The original owners Vallabhbhai and others through their power of attorney Sushail Alkesh Agrawal (deleted petitioner No. 1 herein) sold 1210.15 sq. mtrs. out of Survey No. 255 to the petitioner Dinesh Gor by executing a sale deed on 18.06.2016, wherein other persons had signed as confirming parties. The petitioner has produced a copy of revenue entry in this regard as Annexure B to the petition. According to the petitioner, though the scheme was finalised in 1999, the petitioner was not handed over vacant possession of the part of Final Plot No. 88 purchased by him. 4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Corporation by filing affidavit-inreply contending inter alia that the petitioner had not come with clean hands, inasmuch as the original owner of the land bearing Survey No. 255 was one Taraben, whereas the sale deed was executed by one Vallabhbhai Manjibhai and others in favour of the petitioner Dineshbhai Balkrishna Gor. 4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Corporation by filing affidavit-inreply contending inter alia that the petitioner had not come with clean hands, inasmuch as the original owner of the land bearing Survey No. 255 was one Taraben, whereas the sale deed was executed by one Vallabhbhai Manjibhai and others in favour of the petitioner Dineshbhai Balkrishna Gor. It is further contended that the final Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned as back as in the year 06.03.1999, and that no objections were ever raised by the original owner as regards not handing over possession of the Final Plot No. 88 paiki by the Corporation. 5. During the course of arguments, on the direction given by the Court, the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi had filed the affidavits seeking production of copies of sale deed executed by Vallabhbhai and others in favour of the petitioner and the sale deeds executed by the original owner Taraben in favour of Vallabhbhai Manjibhai and others in the year 1999. The petitioner also stated in the said affidavits disclosing other facts with regard to the Final Plot No. 88 allotted to the original owner Taraben. 6. In the instant case, at the outset, it is required to be stated that the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition had not disclosed all correct and material facts in the petition, nor had produced the relevant documents. The whole petition is drafted in a very vague and clumsy manner. It was only when the Court insisted to produce the relevant documents, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit disclosing other facts in respect of Final Plot No. 88, and produced the documents. Such practice is strongly deprecated and on that ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. So far as the merits of the petition is concerned, it appears that the petitioner Dineshbhai claiming to be the purchaser of the part of Final Plot No. 88 paiki admeasuring 1210.25 sq. mtrs. has sought directions against the respondent Corporation to hand over the possession of the said land. He appears to have purchased the said land from Vallabhbhai Manjibhai and two others through their Power of Attorney Sushil Alkesh Agrawal by executing the registered sale deed on 18.06.2016. mtrs. has sought directions against the respondent Corporation to hand over the possession of the said land. He appears to have purchased the said land from Vallabhbhai Manjibhai and two others through their Power of Attorney Sushil Alkesh Agrawal by executing the registered sale deed on 18.06.2016. Now, the said Sushil Alkesh Agrawal was also shown as petitioner No. 1 in this petition, and subsequently, deleted on the ground that he was only the Banakhat holder. According to the petitioner, in the sale deed executed by Vallabhbhai and others, it was stated that the Corporation had not removed the encroachment in Final Plot No. 88 while handing over the possession thereof. Now, if the said sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner Dinesh Gor is perused, it appears that the said Sushil Agrawal had acted as the Power of Attorney holder of the sellers Vallabhbhai and others as well as the Power of Attorney holder of the confirming parties. The said Sushil Agrawal, as stated earlier, was shown as the petitioner No. 1 also claiming to be the owner. It was only when the matter was being argued, he was deleted from the cause title on the ground that he was a Banakhat holder. From these facts, it clearly transpires that the whole transaction was carried out in dubious manner and this petition was filed misusing the process of law. 8. It is pertinent to note that if the sale deed executed in favour of said Vallabhbhai and others by the original owner Taraban in the year 1999 is perused, no such statement is found that the possession of Final Plot No. 88 was not handed over by the Corporation, and that there was encroachment on the said land as is found in the sale deed executed by the said Vallabhbhai and others in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016. Hence, the submission made by the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that the original owner was not handed over the possession of the Final Plot No. 88, cannot be accepted. 9. It is further pertinent to note that the preliminary scheme was sanctioned by the Government on 02.09.1994 and the final scheme was sanctioned on 04.02.1999. Hence, the submission made by the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that the original owner was not handed over the possession of the Final Plot No. 88, cannot be accepted. 9. It is further pertinent to note that the preliminary scheme was sanctioned by the Government on 02.09.1994 and the final scheme was sanctioned on 04.02.1999. The sale deed was executed by the original owner Taraben in favour of Vallabhbhai and two others on 11.05.1999 in which it was specifically mentioned that the possession of Final Plot No. 88 paiki sold to Vallabhbhai and others, was handed over to them. At no point of time, either Taraben or the said Vallabhbhai and others had come forward with the grievance that they were not handed over the vacant possession of the Final Plot No. 88 paiki. It is only in the sale deed executed by said Vallabhbhai and others in favour of the present petitioner in the year 2016, it is mentioned that there was an encroachment on Final Plot No. 88 paiki, which was not removed by the respondent Corporation, on the basis of which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Such a stand taken in the said sale deed for the first time appears to be absolutely dishonest. Apart from the fact that the petitioner or his predecessor had not made any representation to the Corporation making such grievance, the present petition having been filed almost 18 years after the final scheme was sanctioned, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. In that view of the matter, the present petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Notice is discharged.