ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been filed by the appellants, who were the original petitioners before the learned Single Judge. By a CAV judgement dated 30.10.2018, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition so filed. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are not in dispute and therefore the relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the learned Single Judge eliciting the same are as under: “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 liue 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. 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.” 2.1 In short, the appellants – original petitioners who were claiming to be occupiers of the land bearing Survey No. 530/2 paiki original plot no. 72 sought possession of Final Plots 78/1 and 78/2 and challenged the order of eviction dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Corporation under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the Rules’). 2.2 The Corporation opposed the stand of the original petitioners on two grounds namely (i) locus standi (ii) on merits. On the issue of locus standi, it was the stand of the Corporation that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants. The original landowners were duly served with all the notices and they had not challenged the same. Moreover, on merits, it was the Corporation’s stand that preliminary scheme and final scheme were sanctioned and had become part of the Act and therefore cannot be challenged by the petitioners – appellants. 3. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the affidavit of the Senior Town Planning Officer, opined that the procedure under Rule 26 of the Rules was followed. According to the stand of the Town Planning Officer, landowners/interested persons were issued notices and the objections were invited and the scheme became final. After considering the rival submissions the learned Single Judge held as under: “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. After considering the rival submissions the learned Single Judge held as under: “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. 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.” 4. Mr. 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.” 4. Mr. Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants made the following submissions : (a) The appellants are residing at the said plot and have their residential premises since last 40 years. Possession can be taken only after the allotment of the final plot. (b) The Town Planning Officer had no power to change the alignment of the road. No procedure under Rule 26 of the Rules was followed and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants – petitioners while changing the alignment of the road. 5. Mr. Prashant Desai, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation. Mr. Desai has submitted as under: (a) The appellants were encroachers on land. Owners were given notices under the Rules especially Rule 26 of the Rules and they had no objections. Final Plots No. 78/1 and 78/2 were allotted to such owners. (b) The appellants not being the owners had no claim to be heard even if there was a variation in the scheme as in accordance with the proviso to Section 52, only the owner could raise objections to a variation, if it was of a substantial nature. 6. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader has invited our attention to the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge. The chronology of dates and events would suggest that on 31.03.1999 Draft Town Planning Scheme 20 (Chandkheda-Kali) was sanctioned by the State Government under Section 48(2) of the Act. After the schemes were split, Preliminary Town Planning Scheme 20-A (Chandkheda) was sanctioned on 24.08.2015. Final T.P Scheme was sanctioned on 30.04.2018 under Section 65 of the Act. Public notices were issued under Rule 26(1) and 26(3) in Form-H in the Government Gazette and daily newspaper. Thereafter, notices were sent to individual owners and interested persons inviting objections to the Draft Town Planning Scheme. A notice on reconstitution was given to the owners on 08.10.2008. Owners of the land were served with the decision of the preliminary scheme and decision under Rule 26(9) of the Rules was also conveyed. Thereafter, notices were sent to individual owners and interested persons inviting objections to the Draft Town Planning Scheme. A notice on reconstitution was given to the owners on 08.10.2008. Owners of the land were served with the decision of the preliminary scheme and decision under Rule 26(9) of the Rules was also conveyed. Final Town Planning Scheme was then submitted by the Town Planning Officer under Section 52(2) and Section 65(2) of the Act. 7. Taking into consideration these rival submissions before we render our decision on the issue at hand, it will be relevant to reproduce the various legal provisions under the Act. The same are as under: Section 50: (1) Within one month from the date on which the sanction of the State Government to a draft scheme is notified in the Official Gazette, the State Government shall appoint a Town Planning Officer possessing such qualification as" may be prescribed, for the purpose of such scheme and provide him with such number of officers and staff as may be considered necessary and his duties shall be as hereinafter provided: [Provided that the State Government may, on the request made by the Appropriate Authority, appoint a Town Planning Officer within one month from the date of the publication of the Draft Scheme under sub-section (1) of section 42.] (2) The State Government may, if it thinks fit, at any time, remove, on the ground of incompetence or misconduct or any other good and sufficient reason a Town Planning Officer appointed under this section and shall forthwith appoint another person in his place and any proceeding pending before Town Planning Officer immediately before the date of his removal shall be continued and disposed of by the new Town Planning Officer Appointed in his place: Provided that no Town Planning Officer shall be removed under this subsection except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges has been given to him. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a Town Planning Officer appointed under sub-section (1) for the purpose of any scheme shall cease, to hold office with effect from the date on which the final scheme is sanctioned under section 65. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a Town Planning Officer appointed under sub-section (1) for the purpose of any scheme shall cease, to hold office with effect from the date on which the final scheme is sanctioned under section 65. Section 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) Where 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 (which shall not be earlier than one month after the date of the publication of the notification) 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. (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.] Section 67 : Effect of preliminary scheme On the day on which the preliminary scheme comes into force- (a) all lands required by the appropriate authority shall, unless it is otherwise determined in such scheme, vest absolutely in the appropriate authority free from all encumbrances; (b) all rights in the original plots which have been re-constituted into final plots shall determine and the final plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer. Section 68 : Power of appropriate authority to evict summarily.- On and after the date on which a preliminary scheme comes into force, any person continuing to occupy any land which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary scheme shall, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, be summarily evicted by the appropriate authority. Rule 33 : Procedure for eviction under Section 68 (1) For eviction under section 68, the appropriate authority shall follow the following procedure viz. - (a) The appropriate authority shall in the first instance serve a notice upon a person to be evicted requiring him, within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice, to vacate the land. (b) If the person to be evicted fails to comply with the requirement of the notice, the appropriate authority shall depute any Officer or Servant to remove him. (c) If the person to be evicted resists or obstructs the Officer or Servant deputed under clause (b) or if he re-occupies the land after eviction, the appropriate authority shall prosecute him under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. From the chronology of dates which have been made out what emerges is as under: Dates Particulars 31.03.1999 Draft Town Planning Scheme 20 (Chandkheda-Kali) was sanctioned under Section 48(2). 8. From the chronology of dates which have been made out what emerges is as under: Dates Particulars 31.03.1999 Draft Town Planning Scheme 20 (Chandkheda-Kali) was sanctioned under Section 48(2). In exercise of powers under Section 63 of the Act, the Town Planning Officer had split the scheme as 20-A (Chandkheda) and 20-B (Kali). 05/08/99 On the Town Planning Officer being appointed notices under Rule 26(1) and 26(3) in the prescribed Form H was issued. 14.12.1999 Individual notices were given to the landowners/interested persons. Suggestions and objections were invited. 08/10/08 T.P Scheme was reconstituted. Notice was issued to the owners of Revenue Survey No. 530/2. 21.04.2015 Form F notice under Rule 26(9) was served to the owners. 31.03.2017 The decision of the Final Town Planning Scheme was declared and served on onwers in Form K 30.04.2018 Final Town Planning Scheme under Section 52(2) and Section 62(2) was submitted and sanctioned under Section 65 of the Act. 8.1 In light of these dates and events, let us test the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants with regard to breach of rules of natural justice in (a) not giving an opportunity of hearing when the scheme was varied under Section 52 of the Act and (b) procedure under Rule 26 of the Rules not being followed. Section 52 and Rule 26 are reproduced hereinbelow for a better analysis: Section 52 : Contents of Preliminary and final scheme- (1) In a preliminary scheme, the Town Planning Officer shall,- (i) after giving notice in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed from to the persons affected by the scheme, define and demarcate the areas allotted to, or reserved for, any public purpose, or for a purpose of the appropriate authority and the final plots; (ii) after giving notice as aforesaid, determine in a case in which a final plot is to be allotted to persons in ownership in common, the shares of such persons; (iii) provide for the total or partial transfer of any right in an original plot to a final plot or provide for the transfer of any right in an original plot in accordance with the provisions of section 81; (iv) determine the period within which the works provided in the scheme shall be completed by the appropriate authority. Explanation :- (i) For the purpose of this proviso "variation of a substantial nature" means a variation which is estimated by the Town Planning Officer to involve an increase of ten percent in the costs of the scheme as is described in section 77 or rupees one lac, whichever is lower, on account of the provisions of new works or the allotment of additional sites for public purposes included in the preliminary scheme drawn up by the Town Planning Officer. (ii) If there is any difference of opinion between the Town Planning Officer and the appropriate authority as to whether a variation made by the Town Planning Officer is of substantial nature or not, the matter shall be referred by the appropriate authority to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final. (2) The Town Planning Officer shall submit the preliminary scheme so prepared to the State Government for sanction and shall thereafter prepare and submit to the State Government the final scheme in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). (2) The Town Planning Officer shall submit the preliminary scheme so prepared to the State Government for sanction and shall thereafter prepare and submit to the State Government the final scheme in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). (3) In the final scheme, the Town Planning Officer shall,- (i) fix the difference between the total of the values of the original plots and the total of the values of the plots included in the scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 77; (ii) determine whether the areas used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose or purposes of the appropriate authority are beneficial wholly or partly to the owners or residents within the area of the scheme; (iii) estimate the portion of the sums payable as compensation on each plot used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose or for the purpose of the appropriate authority which is beneficial partly to the owners or residents within the area of the scheme and partly to the general public, which shall be included in the costs of the scheme; (iv) calculate the contribution to be levied under sub-section (1) of section 79, on each plot used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose or for the purpose of the appropriate authority which is beneficial partly to the owners or residents within the area of the scheme and partly to the general public; (v) determine the amount of exemption, if any, from the payment of contribution that may be granted in respect of plots exclusively occupied for religious or charitable purposes; (vi) estimate the increment to accrue in respect of each plot included in the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section 78; (vii) calculate the proportion of the contribution to be levied on each plot in the final scheme to the increment estimated to accrue in respect of such plot under sub-section (1) of section 79; (viii) calculate the contribution to be levied on each plot included in the final scheme; (ix) determine the amount to be deducted from, or added to, as the case may be, the contribution leviable from a person in accordance with the provisions of section 79; (x) estimate with reference to claims made before him, after notice has been given by him in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form, the compensation to be paid to the owner of any property or right injuriously effected by the making of the town planning scheme in accordance with the provisions of section 82; (xi) draw in the prescribed form the preliminary and the final scheme in accordance with the draft scheme : Provided 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 any owners who may raise objections. Rule 26 : Procedure to be followed by Town Planning officer under section 51 and under sub-section (1) of section 52 (1) For the purpose of preparing the preliminary scheme and final scheme the Town Planning Officer shall give notice in Form H of the date on which he will commence his duties and shall state therein the time, as provided in Rule 37 within which the owner of any property or right which is injuriously affected by the making of a Town Planning Scheme shall be entitled under section 82 to make a claim before him. Such notice shall be published in the Official Gazette and in one or more Gujarati newspapers circulating within the area of the appropriate authority and shall be pasted in prominent places at or near the areas comprised in the scheme and at the office of the Town Planning Officer. (2) The Town Planning Officer shall after the date fixed in the notice given under sub-rule (1), continue to carry on his duties as far as possible on working days and during working hours. (3) The Town Planning Officer shall, before proceeding to deal with the matters specified in section 52, publish a notice in Form H in the Official Gazette and in one or more Gujarati newspapers circulating within the area of the appropriate authority. Such notice shall specify the matters which are proposed to be decided by the Town Planning Officer and State that all persons who are interested in the plots or are affected by any of the matters specified in the notice shall communicate in writing their objections to the Town Planning Officer within a period of twenty days from the publication of notice in the Official Gazette. Such notice shall also be pasted at the office of the Town Planning Officer and of the appropriate authority and the substance of such notice shall be pasted at convenient places in the said locality. (4) The Town Planning Officer shall give every person interested in any land affected by any particular of the scheme sufficient opportunity of stating their views and shall not give any decision till he has duly considered their representations if any. (4) The Town Planning Officer shall give every person interested in any land affected by any particular of the scheme sufficient opportunity of stating their views and shall not give any decision till he has duly considered their representations if any. (5) If during the proceedings, it appears to the Town Planning Officer that there are conflicting claims or any difference of opinion with regard to any part of the scheme, the town Planning Officer shall record a brief minute in his own hand setting out the points at issue and the necessary particulars, and shall give a decision with the reasons therefore. All such minutes shall be appended to the scheme. (6) The Town Planning Officer shall record and enter in the scheme every decision given by him. The calculations and estimates shall be set out and recorded in Form F. Form G and in other statements as may be prepared by the Town Planning Officer. (7) The scheme as drawn up by the town Planning Officer shall include particulars specified in rule 21 read with section 52. (8) The component parts of the scheme shall be so arranged that they may be readily referred to in connection with the map and plans. (9) The Town Planning Officer shall publish the scheme drawn up by him by notification in the Official Gazette in Form I and also by means of an advertisement in one or more local newspapers announcing that the scheme shall be open for the inspection of the public during office hours at his office and communicate forthwith the decisions taken by him in respect of each plot to the owner or person interested, by the issue of the requisite extract from the scheme in Form J and Form K as the case may be. The Town Planning Officer shall also inform the President of the Board of Appeal about the publication of final scheme.” 8.2 On a perusal of the above provisions of law and the facts on hand, what is evident is as under: (I) Reading the provisions of Section 48(2) with Section 48A of the Act would indicate that where a draft scheme is sanctioned under sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act, all lands required by the appropriate authority shall vest in such authority. This though will not affect the rights of the owners. This though will not affect the rights of the owners. (II) Evident it is from the redistribution statement that the original owners were one Ambalal Chhaganbhai and 19 others. (III) When public notices were issued under Rules 26(1) and 26(3) of the Rules, neither the owners nor the present appellants filed any objections before the Town Planning Officer. Though they were not owners they could have done so as being persons interested. (IV) Individual notices were given on 14.12.1999. (V) Variation/reconstitution notices were issued to the owners on 08.10.2008. Reading of the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Act and the proviso thereto would suggest that when there is a variation an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the owners. Notice under Rule 26(9) of the Rules was issued. (VI) The scheme became final on 30.04.2018. 9. Admittedly on reading the redistribution statement, it is apparent that the appellants are not owners of the land in question. As occupiers/encroachers, they could at best be persons interested in the land. To the notices under Rules 26(1) and 26(3) of the Rules published on 05.08.1999, the appellants did not lodge any objections or suggestions. 10. Reading the proviso to Section 52(2) of the Act makes it clear that it is only the owner who has the locus to make a grievance on the variation of the scheme. The occupier has no say. Therefore, it is not open for Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants to contend that the appellants had not been given notices under Rule 26 of the Rules. Once having received a public notice and having failed to lodge any suggestions, the appellants have no further right. 11. It would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 48A of the Act which is about vesting of land in appropriate authority. “Section 48A : Vesting of land in appropriate authority.- (1) Where a draft scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government under sub-section (2) of section 48, (hereinafter in this section, referred to as the sanctioned draft scheme), all lands required by the appropriate authority for the purposes specified in clause (c), (f), (g), or (h) of sub-section (3) of section 40 shall vest absolutely in the appropriate authority free from all encumbrances. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect any right of the owner of the land vesting in the appropriate authority under that sub-section. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect any right of the owner of the land vesting in the appropriate authority under that sub-section. (3) The provisions of sections 68 and 69 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the sanctioned draft scheme as if,- (i) sanctioned draft scheme were a preliminary scheme, and (ii) in sub-section (1), for the words "comes into force", the words, brackets and figures "the date on which the daft scheme is sanctioned under sub-section (2) of section 48" were substituted.]” 11.1 Even reading Section 48A of the Act makes it amply clear that once the preliminary scheme is sanctioned the lands vest in the appropriate authority. Only the owner’s rights shall not be affected on such vesting. Therefore, on this count too, the appellants cannot claim any right of being heard even on the basis that the road curvature was done without hearing them. 12. Once the owners accepted the scheme, and the appellants did not lodge objections at the stage of public notice of 05.08.1999, they cannot thereafter claim any right. The impugned order before the learned Single Judge when read in context of Sections 67 and 68 would indicate that once the preliminary scheme comes into force, the lands vest absolutely in the appropriate authority. The appellants have therefore rightly been issued a notice of summary eviction and he is not entitled to occupy the land particularly when the original owners have not come forward to challenge any orders, notices etc. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.