ORDER : 1. The following substantial prayers are made in this petition: “6B. Issue, Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus and quash and set aside the impugned decision letter dated 13.11.2019 bearing Javak No.621 in respect of rejection of the representation dated 13.09.2019 made by the petitioners. C. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus and direct the respondent authorities not to proceed with any construction or any activity which would change the nature of the land bearing City Survey No.3220 pendente lite. D. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus and direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners in any manner from the land bearing City Survey No.3220 pendente lite.” 2. The above reliefs are sought the background of the following facts :- 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing City Survey No.3220 situated at the corner of Harijan Vaas, Mouje and Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad ('the subject land' for the sake of gravity) is their ancestral property and the same is in the physical possession since more than 30 years. It is averred in the petition that land bearing old Survey No.2010 was purchased by the ancestors of the petitioners by Registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1880 from one Malik Fakir Baharsa Gulsa and accordingly the petitioners are the owners of the said land. The old Survey No.2010 was given new Survey No.2142. The land ad-measuring 01 acre 05 guntha of new Survey No.2142, paiki 11 guntha was purchased by Motiya-Rama and Natthu-Mitha, who were the ancestors of the petitioners by Registered Sale Deed dated 26.05.1920 and accordingly, the petitioners are the owners and occupiers of the said land as well. The respondent No.2 has constructed public toilets on the land belonging to the petitioners. However, the ancestors of the petitioners did not raise any objections as it was for the benefit of general public and the society at large. However, the ancestors of the petitioners remained the owners of the land on which the toilets were constructed. The respondent No.2 has constructed public toilets on the land belonging to the petitioners. However, the ancestors of the petitioners did not raise any objections as it was for the benefit of general public and the society at large. However, the ancestors of the petitioners remained the owners of the land on which the toilets were constructed. The city Survey numbers were introduced in the year 1964 and the city Survey authorities wrongly allotted City Survey Nos.3217 and 3218 to the public toilets and City Survey No.3219 came to be allotted for stray cattle and City Survey No.3220 was assigned in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners. However, the land on which the toilets were constructed remains to be ownership of the petitioners. 3. Revenue proceedings ensued in respect of the dispute regarding the ownership of the said properties, though it is only the Competent Civil Court which can decide the ownership of the property, the Revenue Court by order dated 01.08.1992 and assigned the lands in the name of respondent No.2. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Revenue Authorities by filing Regular Civil Suit No.156 of 1993 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad Rural, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 05.12.2008. The petitioners preferred Civil Misc. Application No.81 of 2016 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad Rural. The said proceedings came to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanand, where the application was renumbered as Civil Misc. Application No.22 of 2017. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sanand by order dated 04.10.2018 rejected the said application which was for the condonation of delay which has occurred in preferring restoration application for restoration of Regular Civil Suit No.156 of 1993. Being aggrieved the petitioners have assailed the order before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.18622 of 2018, which is pending. Thereafter, the petitioners instituted one another suit being Regular Civil Suit No.347 of 2016 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sanand for mandatory injunction restraining the respondent No.2 who is the defendant No.1 in the suit from taking the possession of the land from the petitioners or from raising any constructions thereon. Thereafter, the petitioners instituted one another suit being Regular Civil Suit No.347 of 2016 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sanand for mandatory injunction restraining the respondent No.2 who is the defendant No.1 in the suit from taking the possession of the land from the petitioners or from raising any constructions thereon. The petitioners also took out Exh.5 application order for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule (1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code in the above terms. Exh.5 application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide his order dated 31.01.2019. Mr. Tejas Satta, learned advocate for the petitioners under the instructions submits that the order of rejection of Exh.5 application is challenged in the District Court by filing an Appeal. 4. The tenancy agreement dated 12.11.1997 in respect of two shops situated on City Survey No.3220 is also executed in favour of one Shri Yogesh Janardan Raval and have also executed rent agreement in favour of tenant who is in occupation of the properties in question. In the meantime, notice dated 06.02.2019 came to be issued to the petitioners by respondent No.2 calling upon them to remove the constructions on the subject land. The petitioners therefore challenged the notice before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.5927 of 2019. Initially an order of status quo was granted by this Court. However, thereafter by order dated 05.08.2019 the respondent No.2 was directed to decide the case after an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after considering the documents on record. The respondent No.2 was directed to maintain status quo with regard to the subject properties till the decision was taken. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 passed an order dated 13.11.2019 in compliance of order of this Court dated 05.08.2019 rendered in Special Civil Application No.5927 of 2019 and the representation of the petitioners is not accepted as they failed to produce any evidence regarding their ownership of City Survey No.3220. Being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred this petition to assail the communication dated 13.11.2019. 5. I have heard Mr. Tejas Satta, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 6. Mr. Satta, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the issue of the ownership of the subject land is at-large before the competent Civil Court. 5. I have heard Mr. Tejas Satta, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 6. Mr. Satta, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the issue of the ownership of the subject land is at-large before the competent Civil Court. He further submits that the order rejecting the Exh.5 application is challenged before the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural, which is pending adjudication. The petitioners are the lawful holders of the subject land on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of their ancestors. The Additional Secretary, Revenue Department had no jurisdiction or authority to decide the ownership of the property, however, in his order dated 01.08.1992 he has held respondent No.2 to be the owners of the subject property. The petitioners had challenged the order of the Special Secretary by filing Special Civil Suit No.156 of 1993. He also submits that the respondent No.2 has taken the impugned decision without affording an opportunities of hearing to the petitioners which is in violation of order dated 05.08.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.5927 of 2019. He submits that though the issue as regards the ownership of the subject land is still pending before the competent Civil Court, and that there is no documentary evidence worth the name except the orders of the Additional Secretary Revenue Department to show that the respondent No.2 is the owners of the subject land, the action of the respondents is premature and the petition requires consideration. He has placed reliance on unreported decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 17.10.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.13024 of 2000 in the case of Kiritchnadra Dhirendrai Desai and others Versus State wherein it is held that the occupants of the property can not be disposed as without due process of law. He also submitted that Section 185 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act would not be attracted in the present case as it is in respect of obstructions and encroachment upon public streets and any open spaces as the petitioners are not the encroacher on the subject land. He, therefore urged that the petition may be admitted and interim relief as prayed for in paragraph No.6(C) may be granted. 7. Ms. He, therefore urged that the petition may be admitted and interim relief as prayed for in paragraph No.6(C) may be granted. 7. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hand, on the basis of observations made in the order below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.254 of 2017 submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the facts of outcome of Exh.5 application which they had preferred in the earlier suit of 1993. She also submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish their prima-facie case before the Civil Court and therefore, only because the suit is pending in the trial Court, it cannot be said that the petitioners are the owners of the subject land. She therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition. 8. Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has resisted this petition by filing affidavit in reply. No rejoinder is filed thereto. Mr. Sheth, learned advocate submitted that the Nagarpalika become the owners of the subject land on abolition of Enamidhara and thereafter the land is mutated in the name of respondent No.2. He vehemently submitted that the petitioners have failed in getting any order from competent trial Court in their favour to establish the ownership of the subject land. He submits that the suit with the petitioners had filed in the year 1993 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.12.2008 and thereafter, the petitioners have shown complete indifference and after lapse of around eight years thereafter, preferred application for restoration with the delay condonation application in the year 2016, The Civil Court has rejected the delay condonation application which is a subject matter of challenged before this Court. However, no interim relief in favour of the petitioners is passed. Despite multiple attempts, the petitioners have failed to produced a single document to establish their ownership and therefore, the representation of the petitioners is rightly rejected by the respondent No.2 vide impugned communication. He also submits that the petitioners were heard before passing the impugned order. Since, the subject land is required by the respondent No.2 for public purpose, and the respondent No.2 being the lawful owners of the land, no case is made out by the petitioners for entertaining the petition and grant of interim relief. He, therefore submits that the petition does not required any consideration. 9. Since, the subject land is required by the respondent No.2 for public purpose, and the respondent No.2 being the lawful owners of the land, no case is made out by the petitioners for entertaining the petition and grant of interim relief. He, therefore submits that the petition does not required any consideration. 9. It is eminently clear from the documents obtainable on the record of this petition that since 1993, the petitioners are trying to established their ownership right on the subject land without success. The petitioners heavily relied on the sale deed executed in favour of their ancestor to established their ownership on the subject property. Despite their strenuous attempts, they are not able to get any relief from the competent Court. 10. The petitioners have preferred Regular Civil Suit No.156 of 1993 wherein they had made a prayer for declaring them owners of the subject land except the land on which the public toilets are constructed. As noted above, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution and its restoration is the subject matter pending before this Court. Since, the petitioners could not get the delay condone for restoration of the said suit, they have instituted another suit being Special Civil Suit No.256 of 2017 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sanand wherein also they have made similar prayers. Exh.5 application preferred in the said suit is dismissed though the appeal against that order is still pending before the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural. It is thus very clear from the chronology of the attempts made by the petitioners that they have failed to get any order from the competent Court on the basis of their assertion that they are owners of the subject land and now in this petition they are seeking the quashment of impugned communication on the strength of the same arguments that the petitioners are the owners and the issue of their ownership is still at-large before the Civil Court and therefore, the respondent No.2 has no authority to take any action for removal of the constructions under the rights that it is an encroachment. 11. 11. I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to get any relief from the competent Court and now they are trying to get relief from this Court which they failed to get from the competent Courts and therefore, the petition cannot be entertained and I do not find any merits in this petition which deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 12. So far as Section 185 of the Municipalities Act is concerned, it is in respect of the removal of the obstructions and encroachment upon public streets. As the petitioners have failed to established their ownership on the subject land, the construction put up by them is found to be an encroachment which is ought to be removed by the respondent No.2. Hence, the submission of Mr. Satta that Section 185 of the Municipalities Act is not attracted to the facts of the case cannot be accepted. 13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of this petition only and they shall have no bearing on the pending suit/suits or other analogous proceedings pending before this Court. The Courts below wherein the Civil Suit/suits are pending shall decide the suits independently strictly in accordance with law on the basis of ocular and documentary evidence that may be adduced by the parties without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.