JUDGMENT : B.M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The petitioners claiming to be the occupiers of the land bearing Survey No. 530/2 paiki original plot No. 72, have filed the present petition seeking vacant possession of Final Plot No. 78/1 and 78/2, challenging the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the respondent Municipal Corporation calling upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the land occupied by them. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, they are occupiers of the land bearing survey No. 530/2 paiki Original Plot No. 72 since last 40 years. According to the petitioners, the respondent - Corporation had framed the draft Town Planning scheme being No. 20-A (Chandkheda), in which 12 metre wide road was shown going straight and communicating 18 metre wide road at the junction, however, as per the preliminary scheme sanctioned by the Government under Section 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the 12 metre wide road was given curvature. As a result thereof, the four houses of the petitioners were being affected. The owners of the land were served with the notice dated 07.02.2018 from which the petitioners came to know that the said owners were allotted Final Plot Nos. 78/1 and 78/2 in lieu of the Original Plot No. 72 under the preliminary Town Planning scheme. According to the petitioners, the said Final Plot Nos. 78/1 and 78/2 were in possession of some third party, and therefore, the petitioners had made representation to the respondent authorities to the effect that unless and until the vacant possession of the Final Plots was allotted to them, the possession of the land occupied by them should not be taken away. The petitioners were also called for personal hearing on 13.04.2018, however, thereafter the respondent Corporation issued the final order on 08.05.2018 under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the said Act calling upon the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the lands in question. 3. The respondent Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply challenging the very locus standi of the petitioners to file the petition and also contending inter alia that the petition suffers from the vice of suppression of material facts. 3. The respondent Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply challenging the very locus standi of the petitioners to file the petition and also contending inter alia that the petition suffers from the vice of suppression of material facts. According to the respondent Corporation, the petitioners are neither owners nor the legal occupiers of the lands in question, and therefore, there was no question of handing over the possession of Final Plot Nos. 78/1 and 78/2 to them. The respondent has produced on record the redistribution statement to show that the original owners of the Revenue Survey No. 530/2/P were some 20 persons who were allotted original Plot No. 72, and in lieu thereof were given Final Plot Nos. 78/1 and 78/2 under the Town Planning scheme No. 20-A Chandkheda (preliminary). It is also contended that the preliminary Town Planning scheme was sanctioned by the Government on 24.08.2015 with the road alignment as shown therein, and accordingly the original owners were informed vide the notice dated 07.02.2018. The petitioners who were in unauthorized possession of the lands in question, were also served with the notice under Section 68 Rule 33 on 23.03.2018, pursuant to which they had made representation on 02.04.2018, and they were also given opportunity of personal hearing on 13.04.2018. During the course of personal hearing, the petitioners had failed to show their legal right to remain in possession of the lands in question, and therefore, the impugned final order was passed by the Corporation. 4. The petitioners have filed affidavit-in-rejoinder reiterating that they were in possession of the lands in question. Pursuant to the order passed by the Court directing the learned AGP to file reply specifically with regard to issue as to whether the procedure under Rule 26 of the Town Planning and Urban Development Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules') was followed or not, the respondent No. 2 - Town Planner had filed affidavit-in-reply stating inter alia that the draft Town Planning scheme No. 20 (Chandkheda-Kali) was sanctioned by the State Government on 31.03.1999, and thereafter the same was split into two sections i.e. Town Planning scheme No. 20-A (Chandkheda) and Town Planning Scheme No. 20-B (Kali) by the Town Planning officer. The preliminary Town Planning scheme No. 20-A (Chandkheda) was sanctioned by the State Government on 24.08.2015, and final Town Planning scheme was sanctioned on 30.04.2018 under section 65 of the said Act. The preliminary Town Planning scheme No. 20-A (Chandkheda) was sanctioned by the State Government on 24.08.2015, and final Town Planning scheme was sanctioned on 30.04.2018 under section 65 of the said Act. It has been further stated that after the appointment of Town Planning officer under Section 50 of the said Act, public notices under Rule 26(1) and 26(3) of the said Rules in the prescribed Form -'H' were published in the Government Gazette and local daily. The Town Planning Officer had also given notices to the landowners/interested persons inviting objections on 14.12.1999. On the reconstitution of Town Planning scheme No. 20-A (Chandkheda), suggestions were invited vide the notice dated 08.10.2008 to the original owners of the Revenue Survey No. 530/2/P against the proposal to allot them Final Plot No. 78. The original owners of the said Survey Number were also served with the decision of the preliminary scheme as per the Form - 'J' under Rule 26(9) of the said Rules on 21.04.2015. The decision of the Town Planning Officer in respect of the final Town Planning scheme No. 20-A (Chandkheda) was declared on 31.03.2017 in Form - 'K' under Rule 26(9) of the said Rules, which was also served upon the owners of the Survey No. 530/2/P. The Town Planning Officer thereafter had submitted the final Town Planning scheme under section 52(2) and 62(2) of the Act, which was sanctioned by the Government on 30.04.2018. 5. The learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners were the occupiers of the land in question i.e. Revenue Survey No. 530/2 paiki, however, they were not given opportunity of hearing by the Town Planning Officer before the submission of preliminary scheme to the Government. According to him, there was a change made in the preliminary scheme after the draft Town Planning scheme was sanctioned by the Government, which was not notified as per the procedure contained in the Rules nor the opportunity was given to the petitioners of being heard. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kishanbhai Hargovandas Patel and Another versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2010 (4) GLR 2867, he submitted that the power of Town Planning officer is limited to the reconstitution of plots, and he cannot touch the roads earmarked in the sanctioned draft scheme. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kishanbhai Hargovandas Patel and Another versus State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2010 (4) GLR 2867, he submitted that the power of Town Planning officer is limited to the reconstitution of plots, and he cannot touch the roads earmarked in the sanctioned draft scheme. In the instant case, the draft scheme having been sanctioned by the State Government in the year 1999, no change was permissible much less change with regard to alignment of road. 6. However, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Desai for learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondent Corporation relying upon the redistribution statement and other documents on record submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition, they being unauthorized illegal occupants of the lands in question. According to Mr. Desai, the original owners of the lands were duly served with all the notices and orders passed by the Town Planning officers and the State Government from time to time, however, they have not come forward to challenge the same. He also submitted that the preliminary scheme and final scheme having been duly sanctioned by the State Government, they have become part of the Act, which cannot be challenged by the petitioners, who have no legal right to occupy the land in question. 7. In the instant case, it appears that one Mr. Ambalal Chhaganbhai and 19 others were the original owners of the Revenue Survey No. 530/2/P, who were allotted the original Plot No. 72 admeasuring 4,637 sq. mtrs. As per the redistribution statement (Annexure R-I to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 1), the said Original Plot No. 72 was reconstituted as Final Plot No. 78/1 admeasuring 2,565 sq. mtrs. and 78/2 admeasuring 1,314 sq. mtrs., in all admeasuring 3,879 sq. mtrs. as per the notification in the Schedule No. 1. It also appears that the respondent Town Planning Officer before submitting the preliminary scheme prepared by him, had issued the notices to owners of the land in question bearing Survey No. 530/2/P, who were allotted the original Plot No. 72, inviting objections/suggestions. The submission of Mr. mtrs. as per the notification in the Schedule No. 1. It also appears that the respondent Town Planning Officer before submitting the preliminary scheme prepared by him, had issued the notices to owners of the land in question bearing Survey No. 530/2/P, who were allotted the original Plot No. 72, inviting objections/suggestions. The submission of Mr. Kapadia that the Town Planning Officer could not have made any change in the draft scheme, cannot be accepted in view of the proviso to Section 52 of the said Act, which provides inter alia that the Town Planning Officer may make variation from the draft scheme, but no such variation, if it is of a substantial nature, shall be made except with the previous sanction of the State Government, and except after hearing the appropriate authority and the owners who may raise objections. In the instant case, the said procedure has already been followed. The State Government has sanctioned the preliminary scheme as per the notification dated 24.08.2015 with modification as per the Schedule appended thereto. Thereafter, the State Government sanctioned the final scheme on 30.04.2018 under Section 65 of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 65(3) of the said Act, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, as the case may be, as soon as it is sanctioned by the State Government, has the effect as if it were enacted under the Act, and could be varied by the State Government only as per Section 70 of the said Act. Thus, the original owners having been allotted final plot No. 78/1 and 78/2 in lieu of original Plot No. 72, the said owners and the occupiers had ceased to have any right over original Plot No. 72. In any case, none of the original owners has come forward to challenge any of the notices or orders or notifications issued by the respondent authorities from time to time. 8. The petitioners claiming to be the occupiers of Survey No. 530/2/P since last many years, have failed to substantiate their claim by producing any documents much less cogent documents. In any case, none of the original owners has come forward to challenge any of the notices or orders or notifications issued by the respondent authorities from time to time. 8. The petitioners claiming to be the occupiers of Survey No. 530/2/P since last many years, have failed to substantiate their claim by producing any documents much less cogent documents. Though a specific contention challenging the locus standi of the petitioners was raised by the respondent Corporation in the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners have failed to produce any reliable or cogent document to show that they were in legal occupation of the land bearing Survey No. 530/2/P. In any case, undisputedly the petitioners were given the opportunity of hearing by the respondent Corporation before passing the impugned order on 08.05.2018, and therefore, it could not be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice at the instance of the respondent Corporation. Though learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the petitioners emphatically submitted that the Town Planning officer had not followed the procedure as required to be followed under the Rules, the Court does not find any substance in the same. As transpiring from the affidavits filed by the concerned respondents, the requisite procedures prescribed under the said Rules were followed from time to time. The proposed change in the alignment of the road before submitting the preliminary scheme to the State Government was notified, and the notification dated 24.08.2015 sanctioning the preliminary scheme was also duly published. The original owners of the land were also served with the requisite notices by the Town Planning Officer before and after the sanction of the preliminary and final Town Planning scheme in question. Now the scheme having become part of the Act as per Section 65(3) of the said Act, all rights in the original plots which have been reconstituted into final plots have stood determined as per Section 67(b) of the said Act. It is needless to say that any person continuing to occupy any land which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary scheme, could be summarily evicted after following the procedure as per Section 68 of the Act. It is needless to say that any person continuing to occupy any land which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary scheme, could be summarily evicted after following the procedure as per Section 68 of the Act. Hence, the present petition at the instance of the petitioners claiming to be in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 530/2/P, and seeking possession of Final Plot No. 78/1 and 78/2 which have already been allotted to the original owners in lieu of original Plot No. 72, could not be entertained. 9. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. Further Order: The request for extension of interim relief is rejected for the reasons stated in the judgment.