JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. Rule. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 2, Mr. Sunil S. Joshi, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for newly added respondent No. 3 and Mr. Bharat R. Pandya, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for newly added respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to set aside the order dated 17/7/2019 passed by Respondent no. 2 at ANNEXURE-A; and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, to the Respondents to complete the necessary formalities in accordance with Section 70 and other provisions of the Act to remove the error, irregularities in the preliminary T.P. Scheme No. 37/A (Thaltej) qua Final Plot No. 2/1, 2/2/1, 2/2/2, 32/1 & 32/2; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to make the Final T.P. Scheme No. 37/A (Thaltej) qua Final Plot No. 2/1, 2/2/1, 2/2/2, 32/1 & 32/2, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may be required." 4. Heard Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 State, Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate for respondent No. 2, Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned advocate for newly added respondent No. 3 and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bharat Pandya, learned advocate for newly added respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is a registered Co-operative Society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are the members of the said society. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bharat Pandya, learned advocate for newly added respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is a registered Co-operative Society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are the members of the said society. It is submitted that the dispute in the present petition is with regard to the reconstitution and division of Final Plot No. 2 as contained in Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 37/A (Thaltej). It is submitted that as per the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 37/A (Thaltej), land bearing Survey Nos. 497/1 and 498/P are now given Final Plot No. 2, land bearing Survey Nos. 500/1, 500/2 and 500/3 are given Final Plot No. 6 whereas land bearing Survey No. 508/P admeasuring 6588 sq. meters and 508/P admeasuring 1506 sq. meters are given Final Plot No. (12+13)/1 admeasuring 3953 sq. meters and Final Plot No. (12+13)/1 admeasuring 904 sq. meters. 5.1. It is submitted that the concerned authority has sanctioned the development permission and lay-out plan for the scheme of fifty residential tenements on land bearing consolidated Final Plot No. 2+6+(12+13)/1 of the said Town Planning Scheme subject to submission of NA Permission for the land bearing the said original plot under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 ('the Code' for short). On submission of NA permission for the land bearing Survey Nos. 500/1, 500/2 and 500/3, sanctioned lay-out plan was issued by the concerned authority and development permission was granted for carrying out construction of thirteen tenements. Thereafter, the authority has sanctioned revised lay-out plan for forty-eight residential tenements proposed on the land bearing aforesaid final plots in lieu of the original plot with special conditions wherein part of Final Plot No. 2 was denoted as "land without N.A." marked with hash (#) and the five tenements numbered as B-1, B-28 to B-31 were denoted as "Existing work to be removed". Learned advocate has referred the history of grant of development permission and layout plans mentioned in the memo of the petition. 5.2. Thereafter, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that after the sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 37/A(Thaltej), the Town Planning Officer was appointed to subdivide the town planning scheme into a preliminary scheme and final scheme. Notification was issued on 03.01.2012. 5.2. Thereafter, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that after the sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 37/A(Thaltej), the Town Planning Officer was appointed to subdivide the town planning scheme into a preliminary scheme and final scheme. Notification was issued on 03.01.2012. It is submitted that objections were not received for subdivision of Final Plot No. 2 within the prescribed time-limit. Respondent No. 1 extended the said period three times and, thereby violated provisions contained in Section 51 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short). Thereafter, the objections were received and the Town Planning Officer initiated proceedings for subdivision of Final Plot No. 2. 5.3. At this stage, it is pointed out that construction of five tenements i.e. Tenement Nos. B-1 and B-28 to B-31, which were required to be removed as per the original condition of the sanction of the revised lay-out plan, was subsequently regularized under Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 ('GRUDA' for short). 5.4. It is further submitted by Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners that the Town Planning Officer has fraudulently proposed to subdivide Final Plot No. 32 admeasuring 2962 sq. meters in Final Plot Nos. 32/1 and 32/2 admeasuring 790 and 2132 sq. meters respectively. Similarly, Final Plot No. 2 admeasuring 7703 sq. meters is subdivided into Final Plot Nos. 2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2. It is also alleged that final plots are also fraudulently renumbered. 5.5. At this stage, it is submitted that the petitioners initially filed Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016 challenging the action of the respondent Corporation, by which, Final Plot No. 2 was subdivided. The said petition was not entertained by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. However, in the meantime, the State Government sanctioned the preliminary scheme and, therefore, the petitioners by way of an amendment challenged the said Notification in Special Civil Application. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of, as not pressed, reserving liberty to petitioner No. 1 Society to pursue the appeal filed under Section 70 of the Act before respondent No. 2. 5.6. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has, by the impugned order dated 17.07.2019, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 70 of the Act and, therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 5.7. Mr. 5.6. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has, by the impugned order dated 17.07.2019, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 70 of the Act and, therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 5.7. Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that there is informality in the decision taken by the Town Planning Officer as he has proposed subdivision of final plots without receiving any objection within the prescribed time-limit. There is an error apparent on the face of the record in the decision taken by the Town Planning Officer as he has proposed subdivision of Final Plot No. 2. It is submitted that there is informality in the decision of the Town Planning Officer of subdivision of Final Plot No. 2 as Final Plot Nos. 32/1 and 32/2 are not in regular shape and, therefore, it is in violation of condition No. 4 of the Draft Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Notification. 5.8. Thereafter, it is contended that there is informality in decision of the Town Planning Officer of subdivision of Final Plot No. 2 as he has proposed reservation of part of Final Plot No. 2 consisting of common plot, common road, main gate of petitioner No. 1 society without issuing any notice and, thereby without providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 1 Society, the said decision was taken, which is not as per the provisions contained in Section 51(1) of the Act as well as Rules 26(3) and 26(4) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 ('the Rules' for short). 5.9. Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, would further contend that there are irregularities in the decision of the Town Planning Officer as subdivided part of Final Plot No. 2 admeasuring 2130 sq. meters is fraudulently divided into Final Plot No. 32/2 and subdivided part of reserved land bearing Final Plot No. 32/2 admeasuring 2132 sq. meters along with access land of 40 sq. meters is fraudulently denoted as Final Plot No. 2/2/2. He would also contend that reconstitution of the plots can be done during the stage of Draft Town Panning Scheme and, therefore, subdivision of Final Plot No. 2 into Final Plot No. 2/2/2 at the stage of preliminary scheme is in violation of the provisions of the Act. 5.10. meters is fraudulently denoted as Final Plot No. 2/2/2. He would also contend that reconstitution of the plots can be done during the stage of Draft Town Panning Scheme and, therefore, subdivision of Final Plot No. 2 into Final Plot No. 2/2/2 at the stage of preliminary scheme is in violation of the provisions of the Act. 5.10. Learned advocate would further contend that respondent No. 1 erred in sanctioning preliminary scheme as land bearing Final Plot No. 32/2 was reserved for "sale for residence" and the said land is not free from all encumbrances as common plot of the petitioners and construction of five tenements, which are duly regularized under GRUDA are existing at the said place. At this stage, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of the land in question and they are paying property tax to the respondent Corporation. 5.11. Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, therefore contended that though the aforesaid irregularities and informalities were pointed out by the petitioners in the appeal filed under Section 70 of the Act before respondent No. 2, without properly appreciating the relevant aspects, respondent No. 2 has rejected the said appeal and, therefore, this Court may quash and set aside the impugned order and, thereby, direct the respondent authority to remove the error and irregularities in the preliminary T.P. Scheme No. 37/A (Thaltej) qua Final plot Nos. 2/1, 2/2/1, 2/2/2, 32/1 and 32/2. 5.12. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (a) CAV judgment dated 28.03.2011 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2339 of 2010 in the case of Kartik Mohanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary & Ors. (b) Purshottam Co-Op. Housing Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation reported in (2002) 2 GLR 1425 (c) Sri Nath Education Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 All 187 (d) Sarvesh Atulbhai Gohil Vs. Jamnagar Urban Development Authority & Ors. reported in 2014(2) GLH 26 6. Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2, has referred the reasoning recorded by respondent No. 2 while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 70 of the Act. reported in AIR 1996 All 187 (d) Sarvesh Atulbhai Gohil Vs. Jamnagar Urban Development Authority & Ors. reported in 2014(2) GLH 26 6. Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2, has referred the reasoning recorded by respondent No. 2 while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 70 of the Act. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 2 after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and all the submissions canvassed by the petitioners have been dealt with by respondent No. 2 and by giving detailed reasoning, the request of the petitioners has not been acceded and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition. 6.1. Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation, has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (a) Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398 (b) Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India reported in 2007(8) SCC 449 (c) K.D. Sharma Versus Steel Authority Of India Limited reported in 2008(12) SCC 481 (d) decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12354 of 2002 on 25.06.2004 in the case of Patel Prakash Society Thro Secretary Vs. State of Gujarat (e) Kashiben Wd/o. Pitamber Devchand Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1989(2) GLR 1176 (f) Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and another Vs. The Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1972 SC 793 7. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for newly added respondent No. 3, referred the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3, a copy of which is produced at Page-133 of the compilation. At the outset, it is contended that the present petition is required to be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of material facts. It is also contended that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may consider the conduct of the present petitioners, who have misled this Court by not properly disclosing the correct facts. It is submitted that the petitioners have intentionally not joined present respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the petition, though the petitioners have prayed relief qua Final Plot Nos. 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 and respondent No. 3 is the owner of Final Plot No. 2/2/1. 7.1. It is submitted that the petitioners have intentionally not joined present respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the petition, though the petitioners have prayed relief qua Final Plot Nos. 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 and respondent No. 3 is the owner of Final Plot No. 2/2/1. 7.1. On merits, learned Senior Advocate submitted that petitioner No. 1 filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016 challenging the action of the Town Planning Officer dividing Final Plot No. 2 into different final plots. During the pendency of the said petition, the State Government sanctioned the preliminary town planning scheme approving the division of Final Plot No. 2 made by the Town Planning Officer and, therefore, the petition was amended and, thereby, the Notification issued by the State Government was also challenged. This Court has dismissed the petition vide order dated 25.07.2017. Copy of the said order is produced on record at Page-148 of the compilation. Learned Senior Advocate has referred the reasoning recorded by this Court. Thereafter, it is pointed out that petitioner No. 1 challenged the said order by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 1508 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. When the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to entertain the said appeal, petitioner No. 1 did not press the said appeal as petitioner No. 1 filed appeal under Section 70 of the Act before the competent authority. The said LPA was disposed of, as not pressed. 7.2. Learned Senior Advocate, thereafter, contended that one Poras Babubhai Patel and others were the owners of Survey Nos. 497/1, 498/P, 500/1, 500/2, 500/3, 508/P and 508/P. The aforesaid survey numbers were given Final Plot No. 2, 6, (12+13)/1. It is stated that for the purpose of getting development permission, lay-out plan with regard to the aforesaid final plots was put up before the AUDA for approval and the said authority has sanctioned the same only qua Final Plot No. 6 (Survey Nos. 500/1, 500/2 and 500/3) and granted development permission on 06.02.2008 for construction of Tenement Nos. 8 to 12/A, 27 and 39 to 44. It is stated that the area admeasuring 52.90 sq. meters and 131.14 sq. meters, in all 184.04 sq. meters, was earmarked in the said lay-out as electric sub-station and club house, as common plot. 500/1, 500/2 and 500/3) and granted development permission on 06.02.2008 for construction of Tenement Nos. 8 to 12/A, 27 and 39 to 44. It is stated that the area admeasuring 52.90 sq. meters and 131.14 sq. meters, in all 184.04 sq. meters, was earmarked in the said lay-out as electric sub-station and club house, as common plot. Thereafter, for the purpose of getting development permission for the remaining areas i.e. Final Plot No. 2 and (12+13)/1 (i.e. Survey Nos. 497, 498/P and 500/1+2+3), the lay-out plan was submitted before the AUDA and the said authority partly sanctioned the lay-out plan and granted permission on 27.06.2011. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate would contend that land bearing Survey Nos. 497/1 and 498/P were given consolidated Final Plot No. 2. The original owner of land bearing Survey No. 498/P (i.e. Poras Babubhai Patel and others) had not sold the same to the developer, namely, Ramjibhai Patel and others and the same was permitted for NA use. In spite of that, on some part of Survey No. 498/P (i.e. part of Final Plot No. 2), the said developer had carried out unauthorized construction. Therefore, while approving lay-out plan as well as granting development permission, AUDA had imposed two conditions, namely, (1) no permission is granted in respect of the portion which is marked as hash (#) in said lay-out plan and (2) development permission is granted subject to removal of the construction of Tenement Nos. B-1, B-28 to 31. Learned Senior Advocate has referred the development permission and the relevant plans, copies of which are produced at Pages-44 to 49 of the compilation. 7.3. After referring to the aforesaid documents, it is contended that no development permission was granted by the AUDA with regard to part of Final Plot No. 2 which related to area of Survey No. 498/P and that area admeasuring 878.74 sq. meters and 494.05 sq. meters, total 1372.70 sq. meters, is reserved as Common Plot Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 7.4. It is, thereafter, contended that on the basis of the representation of the original land owner, the Town Planning Officer appointed under Section 50 of the Act in discharge of his duty in preparing preliminary and final scheme, reconstituted and subdivided said Final Plot No. 2 into Final Plot Nos. 2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2. 1 and 2 respectively. 7.4. It is, thereafter, contended that on the basis of the representation of the original land owner, the Town Planning Officer appointed under Section 50 of the Act in discharge of his duty in preparing preliminary and final scheme, reconstituted and subdivided said Final Plot No. 2 into Final Plot Nos. 2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2. The said action of the Town Planning Officer was challenged by petitioner No. 1 Society by filing Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016. The said petition was dismissed. Learned Senior Advocate has referred the order passed by this Court. After referring to the same, it is submitted that in the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners is about the division of Final Plot No. 2 made by the Town Planning Officer and, therefore, it is contended that once the decision taken by the Town Planning Officer is not interfered with by this Court, it is not open for the petitioners to once again raise the similar contention in the present petition on the ground that respondent No. 2 has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 8. Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate, has referred the order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016 and contended that once the submissions of petitioner No. 1 Society were not accepted by this Court, it is not open for the petitioners to once again raise similar type of contentions. Learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts and, therefore, looking to the conduct of the petitioners, they are not entitled to get the equitable relief. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the land mentioned here in below were covered under the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 37/A (Thaltej) and in lieu thereof Final Plots were allotted. Survey No. and Area Final Plot No. and Area 497/1 5404 sq. mts. + 498/P 7433 sq. mts. Total 12837 sq. mts. F.P.No.2 7703 sq. mts 500/1 708 sq. mts. + 500/2 5160 sq. mts. + 500/3 4957 sq. mts. Total 10825 sq. mts. F.P.No.6 6495 sq. mts 508/P 6588 sq. mts. Survey No. and Area Final Plot No. and Area 497/1 5404 sq. mts. + 498/P 7433 sq. mts. Total 12837 sq. mts. F.P.No.2 7703 sq. mts 500/1 708 sq. mts. + 500/2 5160 sq. mts. + 500/3 4957 sq. mts. Total 10825 sq. mts. F.P.No.6 6495 sq. mts 508/P 6588 sq. mts. + 508/P 1506 sq. mts. Total 8094 sq. mts. F.P.No.(12+13)/1 3953 F.P.No.(12+13)/1 904 Total 10. The Town Planning Officer, thereafter, in discharge of his duty in preparing the preliminary and final scheme reconstituted and subdivided the said Final Plot No. 2 into Final Plot Nos. 2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 in the following manner: Final Plot No. Area F.P. No.2/1 3282 sq. mts. F.P. No.2/2/1 2287 sq. mts. F.P. No.2/2/2 2173 sq. mts. 11. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the decision of the Town Planning Officer in dividing Final Plot No. 2 into three different final pots was challenged by petitioner No. 1 Society by filing Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016. In the said petition, petitioner No. 1 Society had joined the concerned affected parties i.e. owners of Final Plot No. 2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 as party respondents. The petitioners have raised various contentions in the said petition. The grievance in the said petition was with regard to splitting of Final Plot No. 2 into Final Plot Nos. 2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 and allocation of reserved land of Final Plot No. 32/2 in lieu of the private land of Final Plot No. 2/2/2 in favour of the concerned private respondent No. 6. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition vide order dated 25.07.2017 recorded the facts in Paragraph-2, which reads as under: "2. Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and the Rules framed there under for the prayers inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued declaring draft variation in Town Planning Scheme No. 37A (Thaltej), Ahmedabad splitting Final Plot No. 2 into Fine Plot No. 2/1 and Final Plot Nos. 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 as well as splitting Final Plot No. 32 and allocation of reserved land of Final Plot NO. 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 as well as splitting Final Plot No. 32 and allocation of reserved land of Final Plot NO. 32/2 in lieu of private land of Final Plot No. 2/2/2 in favour of private respondent no. 6 as arbitrary and illegal on the grounds stated in the memo of petition." 12. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed in Paragraphs-15, 16 and 17 as under: "15. As it appears that at the stage of draft scheme, sufficient opportunity has been given to the original owner as his name would be shown as owner of the land. Not only that, as per the order dated 18.07.2016, the Town Planning Officer has considered the objections raised by the petitioner society as well as considered such objections after giving an opportunity of hearing. This itself would suggest that the submissions which have been made that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner society or individual members of the society is misconceived. Apart from that, as per the judgment of this Court reported in case of Satyadev Parasnath Pandey (supra), individual notices are not required. Again as could be seen, process of the draft scheme has already been undertaken and, thereafter, if any subsequent transaction has taken place, the person like petitioner society cannot be heard to say in the name of the members that individual members have not been heard. In fact, as contended by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Soparkar, the petitioner society or the individual members have not raised any objection and the petitioner is the society only for the maintenance, which has raised such contention. At this stage, it is required to be stated that as it is reflected in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 7 by learned advocate, Shri Prabhav Mehta that the petitioner society or the members of the Sahajanand Palace are not affected in any manner with specific averments in the affidavit in reply in Paragraph No. 8.22 that any plot, location or the area of the land of the society is not reduced or affected. It appears that the petitioner has without any basis or justification filed Civil Application making allegation about the fraud on the Court. Therefore such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be maintainable for inter se dispute, which are sought to be raised for personal reasons. 16. It appears that the petitioner has without any basis or justification filed Civil Application making allegation about the fraud on the Court. Therefore such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be maintainable for inter se dispute, which are sought to be raised for personal reasons. 16. In the facts of the case, as it has been explained in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent State and the other respondents including the respondent nos. 6 and 7, the procedure has been followed and after considering the objections, the Town Planning Officer has finalized and sent the scheme for approval to the State Government. As stated above, the public notices have been given and in fact, the petitioner society has also been given opportunity and hearing has been afforded and, thereafter, the decision has been taken. It is required to be stated that framing of the scheme and finalization is a process which has been contemplated in the Act and the procedure is followed as per the provisions of the Town Planning Act and the Rules and if the procedure is followed, no grievance could be made by the person like the petitioner society, particularly when the constructed units of the members of the society or any common plot or any other area is not affected by the scheme. It is in this background, even if there is some effect of the scheme that the gate or portion of the margin land of the petitioner society is merged in TP Scheme, no grievance could be made by the petitioner, which is a service society of the members of the original society and the members of the society and independent members have not raised any grievance. In fact, as stated, some portion/construction has been unauthorized, which has also been regularized, which has also been kept in mind at the time of finalization of the same to avoid any kind of adverse effect on the society of the individual members holding residential units. Therefore, no grievance could be made and any such grievance would not be justified. 17. Therefore, no grievance could be made and any such grievance would not be justified. 17. Therefore having regard to the background of the facts and the provision of the T.P. Act and the Rules and also when there is no substantial impact or the effect on the petitioner society, such petition cannot be entertained in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present petition, the petitioners have not annexed a copy of the said order with the memo of the petition, though the petitioners have referred the filing of aforesaid petition before this Court. It is also required to be noted that petitioner No. 1 Society filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1508 of 2017 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the said Letters Patent Appeal was not pressed as petitioner No. 1 filed appeal under Section 70 of the Act. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court. It is to be noted at this stage that the petitioners have placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal along with the memo of the petition. 14. It is further revealed from the record that the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 15251 of 2018 with a prayer to direct respondent No. 2 to stop the construction on land bearing Final Plot No. 2/2/1. The said petition was disposed of by this Court permitting the petitioners to initiate suitable proceedings and, therefore, the petitioners have filed Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 2019 before the concerned Civil Court. The petitioners have not produced a copy of the said order on record. Further, Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the private respondents herein. The petitioners were aware about the fact that the present private respondents are the affected parties and though the prayer is made in the present petition with regard to Final Plot Nos. 2/2/1 and 2/2/2, the private respondents were not joined as party respondents. 15. The petitioners were aware about the fact that the present private respondents are the affected parties and though the prayer is made in the present petition with regard to Final Plot Nos. 2/2/1 and 2/2/2, the private respondents were not joined as party respondents. 15. Thus, from the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, it is revealed that the petitioners have tried to misguide this Court and obtained an ad-interim relief in their favour without joining the private respondents as party in the present petition. After getting ad-interim relief in their favour, the petitioners have tried to delay the present proceedings when the Civil Applications were filed by the private respondents for joining them as party respondents and for vacating interim relief. Initially, the petitioners have vehemently objected the said Civil Applications. However, when this Court has pointed out that in the first round of litigation filed by petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016, the owners of the aforesaid final plots were joined as party respondents and the relief prayed for in the present petition is also with regard to the aforesaid two final plots and because of the interim relief, the concerned applicants are affected parties, at that stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners have contended that if the private respondents are joined as party, he has no objection. At this stage, it is also to be noted that on one hand, the petitioners got ad-interim relief in their favour without joining the private respondents as party and on the other hand, they were giving applications to respondent No. 2 pressurizing them to stop the construction commenced by respondent No. 3 herein on Final Plot No. 2/2/1. From the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it is further revealed that they have filed an application under the Contempt of Courts Act against the officers of the Corporation. Thus, on one hand, the petitioners have objected for joining the private respondents as parties in the present petition and on the other hand, on the basis of the ad-interim relief granted in their favour, they have tried to see that construction work commenced by respondent No. 3 is stopped. Thus, on one hand, the petitioners have objected for joining the private respondents as parties in the present petition and on the other hand, on the basis of the ad-interim relief granted in their favour, they have tried to see that construction work commenced by respondent No. 3 is stopped. Thus, from the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have abused the process of the Court and looking to their conduct and suppression of material facts, they are not entitled to get equitable relief. 16. At this stage, the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma Versus Steel Authority Of India Limited (supra) is required to be kept in view. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed in Paragraphs-34, 36, 38 and 39 as under: "34. Deprecating the reprehensible conduct of the petitioners as well as of their counsel, the Court stated; "Before parting with the case, however, we cannot help observing that the conduct or behaviour of the two petitioners as well as their counsel (Dr. A.K. Kapoor who happens to be a medico-legal consultant practising in Courts) is most reprehensible and deserves to be deprecated. The District Judge's report in that behalf is eloquent and most revealing as it points out how the two petitioners and their counsel, (who also gave evidence in support of the petitioner's case before the District Judge) have indulged in telling lies and making reckless allegation of fabrication and manipulation of records against the College Authorities and how in fact the boot is on their leg. It is a sad commentary on the scruples of these three young gentlemen who are on the threshold of their carriers. In fact, at one stage we were inclined to refer the District Judge's report both to the Medical Council as well as the Bar Council for appropriate action but we refrained from doing so as the petitioners' counsel both on behalf of his clients as well as on his own behalf tendered unqualified apology and sought mercy from the Court. We, however, part with the case with a heavy heart expressing our strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour..." (emphasis supplied) 35. xxx xxx xxx 36. Describing the fact as material, the Court said: "Petitioners who have behaved in this manner are not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court". We, however, part with the case with a heavy heart expressing our strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour..." (emphasis supplied) 35. xxx xxx xxx 36. Describing the fact as material, the Court said: "Petitioners who have behaved in this manner are not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court". 37. xxx xxx xxx 38. In State of Punjab V/s. Sarav Preet, 2002 9 SCC 601 , A obtained relief from the High Court on her assertion that a test in a particular subject was not conducted by the State. In an appeal by the State, it was stated that not only the requisite test was conducted but the petitioner appeared in the said test and failed. Observing that the petitioner was under an obligation to disclose the said fact before the High Court, this Court dismissed the petition. 39. In Union of India V/s. Muneesh Suneja, 2001 3 SCC 92 , the detenu challenged an order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 (COFEPOSA) by filing a petition in the High Court of Delhi which was withdrawn. Then he filed a similar petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana wherein he did not disclose the fact as to filing of the earlier petition and withdrawal thereof and obtained relief. In an appeal by the Union of India against the order of the High Court, this Court observed that nondisclosure of the fact of filing a similar petition and withdrawal thereof was indeed fatal to the subsequent petition." 17. Similarly, in the case of Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held in Paragraph-33 as under: "33. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R V/s. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, 1917 1 KB 486, in the following words: "(I) It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it the Court is supposed to know the law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied)" 18. From the aforesaid two decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, it can be said that the High Court is exercising discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court of Law is a Court of Equity. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the case. 19. The petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold. It is also held that the party who invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress or not to disclose other facts. 20. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court if the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove are examined, this Court is of the view that looking to the conduct of the petitioners, they are not entitled to claim the relief as prayed for in the present petition. 21. 20. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court if the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove are examined, this Court is of the view that looking to the conduct of the petitioners, they are not entitled to claim the relief as prayed for in the present petition. 21. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the first round of litigation, petitioner No. 1 Society has challenged the action of Town Planning Officer, by which, Final Plot No. 2 has been divided into three different final plots. Similarly, allocation of reserved land of Final Plot NO. 32/2 in lieu of private land of Final Plot No. 2/2/2 in favour of private respondent was also challenged. During the pendency of the said petition, preliminary scheme was sanctioned by the State Government and, therefore, by way of amendment, the said Notification was also challenged. This Court has specifically observed that sufficient opportunity was given at the stage of draft scheme and the Town Planning Officer has considered objections raised by petitioner No. 1 Society. It is specifically observed that framing of the scheme and finalization is a process, which has been contemplated in the Act and the procedure has been followed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under and if the procedure is followed, no grievance could be made by the person like petitioner No. 1 Society, particularly when the constructed units of the members of the society or any common plot or any other area is not affected by the scheme. It is also observed that even if there is some effect of the Scheme that the gate or portion of the margin land of petitioner No. 1 society is merged in T.P. Scheme, no grievance could be made by the petitioner, which is a service society of the members of the original society and the members of the society and independent members have not raised any grievance. Therefore, no grievance could be made. It was also observed that when there is no substantial impact or the effect on the petitioner society, such petition cannot be entertained in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no grievance could be made. It was also observed that when there is no substantial impact or the effect on the petitioner society, such petition cannot be entertained in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge is not set aside by the Division Bench as the Letters Patent Appeal filed by petitioner No. 1 Society was not pressed. 22. Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kartik Mohanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary & Ors. (supra). In the said decision, the Division Bench has observed that as per the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, even if the scheme is finalized, power is with the authority to consider the matter for variation of the scheme, if the scheme is defective on account of an error, irregularity or infirmity. 23. In the case of Purshottam Co-Op. Housing Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation (supra), this Court has observed that the Town Planning Officer has to pass town planning scheme in the preliminary and final scheme, as it is, as per the draft town planning scheme which has already been sanctioned by the State Government wherein the land in question is dereserved. 24. In the case of Sri Nath Education Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), the Allahabad High Court has observed in Paragraph-5 as under: "5. In the instant case respondents had neither the power to take possession of the land of the petitioners nor can they interfere with their possession for making construction of the road without acquiring the land. Howsoever laudable object the State may intend to achieve it can neither deprive a person of his property nor can it interfere with his right save by authority of law. Apart from violation of Article 300A of the Constitution such an action of the State is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. By threatening to take possession of the petitioner's property for purpose of construction of the road without acquiring the land, the respondents have acted in most high handed manner and they continued to do so till this Court granted interim order." 25. In the case of Sarvesh Atulbhai Gohil Vs. Jamnagar Urban Development Authority & Ors. By threatening to take possession of the petitioner's property for purpose of construction of the road without acquiring the land, the respondents have acted in most high handed manner and they continued to do so till this Court granted interim order." 25. In the case of Sarvesh Atulbhai Gohil Vs. Jamnagar Urban Development Authority & Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed in Paragraph-19 as under: "19. According to the definition of "common plot" as contained in the General Development Control Regulations of JADA, a common plot shall mean a common open space exclusive of margins and approaches, at a height not more than ground level of the building unit. The owner shall have to give an undertaking that the common plot shall be for the common use of all the residents and occupants of the building unit, free of cost. On sanction of the development permission, the common plot shall be deemed to have been vested in the Society/Association of the residents/occupants. In case such Society or the Association is to be formed, the possession/custody of common plot shall remain with the competent Authority until such Association/Society is formed. The common plot shall not be sold to any other person and it shall not be put to any other use, except for the common use of the residents/occupants. The general requirements so far as the common plot is concerned, according to the General Development Control Regulations, are as under:-" [1. The common plot area shall be exclusive of approaches, margins No projection shall be permitted in common plot.] [2. Minimum size of the common plot shall be 200 sq. mts. With no side less than 10.50 Mts.] [3. No construction shall be permitted in the common plot. Only electric sub station overhead water tank, underground water tank, watchman's room, community hall for the occupier of respective sub plots or tenements or flats, tube well and rain water recharge well shall be permitted subject to margin as per this regulations and maximum 15% of respective common plot area.] [4. The area of the common plot may be permitted to be sub-divided provided that the common plot has a minimum area of 250 sq. mts. With no sides less than 10.50 mts. The area of the common plot may be permitted to be sub-divided provided that the common plot has a minimum area of 250 sq. mts. With no sides less than 10.50 mts. Provided for a group housing, (building with Ground floor plus two upper floors without hollow plinth), further subdivisions of the common plot may be allowed by the Competent Authority.] [5. The area of this common plot shall be deducted for the consideration of Floor Space Index of a building unit.] [6. (a) In the case of "all uses except residential" total common plot may be allowed to be used as parking space including drive-way and the aisles. [(b) In the case of residential use 50% of the total common plot may be allowed to be used as parking space including drive way and aisles.]] [7. In case, where in layout or sub division of building unit is sanctioned with provision of required common plot, common plots shall not be insisted in case of sub division of such sub divided new building and/or amalgamation of such sub plots and/or further development of such sub divided new building unit irrespective of it's area. [Provided for the building unit to be developed for other then residential use, parking place shall be provided at rate of 5% of respective building unit in addition to require parking, at the ground level."] 26. Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation, has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Patel Prakash Society Thro Secretary Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein this Court has observed in Paragraph-6 as under: "6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. What is prayed in the petition is to direct the respondents to vary the scheme exercising the powers under Sections 70 and 71 of The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') so as to exclude the lands of the petitioners from the said Town Planning Scheme No. 14. Section 70 of the Act gives power to the appropriate authority to apply in writing to the State Government for variation of the scheme, if the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective on account of any error, irregularity or any informality. Section 70 of the Act gives power to the appropriate authority to apply in writing to the State Government for variation of the scheme, if the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective on account of any error, irregularity or any informality. In the present case, after considering the objections submitted on behalf of the petitioner to the draft scheme as well as the preliminary scheme, the preliminary scheme has become final. If ultimately the appropriate appropriate considers that the scheme is defective on account of the reasons which are stated hereinabove, then it is the appropriate authority who has to move an application for the purpose of variation of the scheme. The petitioner as such cannot pray for directing the authority to vary the scheme and hence such a prayer considering the scheme of the Act cannot be granted. The only thing is that before the preliminary scheme is finalised the objections which are submitted by the petitioner are required to be considered by the appropriate authority. In the affidavit-in-reply it is specifically stated that after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner the preliminary scheme is sanctioned. Under the circumstances, when a decision is taken to finalise the preliminary scheme after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner, the scheme has become part of the Act which cannot be challenged by the petitioner. If the prayer which is sought for by the petitioner in the present Special Civil Application to direct the respondents to vary the scheme exercising the power under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act so as to exclude the lands of the petitioners from the said Town Planning Scheme No. 14 is granted, then no Town Planning Scheme can be implemented. The contention of the petitioner that there is no need for 60 feet road cannot be considered by this Court. It is ultimately for the appropriate authority to decide and come to the conclusion to frame the scheme and in order to fix the width of the road so many other aspects are required to be considered by the appropriate authority. While preparing the Town Planning Scheme, they are also required to consider the need for a bigger road in future also. If after considering the objections, the Town Planning Scheme is finalised, then this Court has no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to vary the scheme. While preparing the Town Planning Scheme, they are also required to consider the need for a bigger road in future also. If after considering the objections, the Town Planning Scheme is finalised, then this Court has no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to vary the scheme. It is pertinent to note that there is no malafide alleged in the petition. Considering the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents; the Town Planning Scheme having become final; and the prayer in terms of Para 31(A) not pressed by the petitioner, the prayer in terms of Para 31(B) to direct the respondents to vary the scheme so as to exclude the lands of the petitioners from the said Town Planning Scheme No. 14 also cannot be granted as, virtually, the relief, which is sought for in Para 31(B) is similar to that of the prayer which was sought for and not pressed in terms of Para 31(A)." 27. Similarly, he has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashiben Wd/o. Pitamber Devchand Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein it was observed that once a final scheme is prepared, it must be deemed to be part of the Act and if the original owner loses all rights over the land, he is liable to be evicted and he has no locus standi to file a writ petition. 28. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, upon which, the reliance is placed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, if the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove are examined, it can be said that under Section 70 of the Act, powers are given to the authority to apply in writing to the State Government for variation of the scheme, if the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective on account of any error, irregularity or any informality. If ultimately, the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective on account of the reasons which are stated in Section 70 of the Act, then it is the appropriate authority who has to move an application for the purpose of variation of the scheme. The petitioners cannot as such pray for directing the authority to vary the scheme and hence, such a prayer considering the scheme of the Act cannot be granted. The petitioners cannot as such pray for directing the authority to vary the scheme and hence, such a prayer considering the scheme of the Act cannot be granted. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 14484 of 2016 challenging the action of the Town Planning Officer dividing Final Plot No. 2 into different final plots. During the pendency of the said petition, the State Government sanctioned the preliminary town planning scheme approving the division of Final Plot No. 2 made by the Town Planning Officer and, therefore, the petition was amended by petitioners whereby Notification issued by the State Government was also challenged. After considering the relevant aspects, this Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 25.07.2017. The said order is not set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. On the contrary, the petitioners had withdrawn the said appeal. 29. Thus, now on the ground of rejection of application filed under Section 70 of the Act on the grounds, which were also raised in the first round of litigation, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue before this Court. Even on merits also, this Court has examined the reasoning recorded by respondent No. 2 while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 70 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 has in detail discussed each and every contentions raised by the petitioners and, thereafter, held that there is no illegality, impropriety and informality as alleged by the petitioners. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is required in the impugned decision taken by respondent No. 2. 30. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The interim relief, granted earlier, shall stand vacated.