JUDGMENT : 1. RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet M. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for respondent No.1, while Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for hearing today. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 4. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities i.e. the respondent No.2 and 3 to construct and allot the residential premises in favour of the petitioners, in the premises where the petitioners are residing, instead of allotting them the premises in TP Scheme No.44 (Chandkheda), Final Plot No.224, Rajiv Gandhi Avas Yojna, on any reasonable conditions as may deem fit in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order of Direction, directing the respondent authorities i.e. the respondent No.2 and 3 to provide an accommodation to the petitioners in the nearby area i.e. Prime Ministers Avas Yojna, Ramapir No Tekro (Section 5) Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad.” 5. The facts in brief are as under: 5.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residing with their families at Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Nava Wadaj), Final Plot No.536, near the Community Hall, Wadaj Circle, Ahmedabad for the last more than 50 years. With a view to rehabilitate the slum dwellers under the Regulation for the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Slums, 2010 and under Chief Ministers Gujarat Rural Urban, local authorities had to identify the slum pockets and start development and rehabilitate such slum dwellers. Under challenge is the notice dated 1.6.2019 issued to the petitioners by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Reading the notice would indicate that Final Plot No.536 of TP No.28 (Nava Wadaj) is reserved for community hall. Under challenge is the notice dated 1.6.2019 issued to the petitioners by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Reading the notice would indicate that Final Plot No.536 of TP No.28 (Nava Wadaj) is reserved for community hall. Alternative accommodation was made available to the petitioners earlier at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna, thereafter, it was changed to Aavas near Jupiter Mill which was for administrative reasons suspended. The notice further indicates that hence now the petitioners are offered alternative accommodation at TP No.44 (Chandkheda), Final Plot No.224, Rajiv Aavas Yojna and, thereafter asked to remain present to lodge their entitlement. It is in this context, the prayers are so made. 6. Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned counsel for the petitioners would indicate that vide that vide a resolution dated 18.7.2013, it was incumbent upon the respondent – Corporation to allot residential premises in situ. It is submitted that it was a special policy framed for rehabilitating the slum dwellers. He would submit that initially the petitioners were offered accommodation at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna on 10.7.2014 which was subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, they were allotted accommodation on 9.5.2016 at Jupiter Mill, which allotment was cancelled on 25.2.2016. Now, by the impugned notice, they have been offered accommodation at Chandkheda, which is in violation of the in situ rehabilitation policy. He would further submit that at Ramapir Na Tekra close to the slums of the petitioners, there are 8,000 houses to be still constructed, which should be allotted to the petitioners. As far as the reservation made to the community hall is concerned, Mr. Sethna would invite the attention of the Court to the photograph on page No.125 to submit that a community hall already exists within the distance of half kilometer. Mr. Sethna would invite the attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioners to submit that several slum dwellers in Wadaj area have been allotted accommodation and rehabilitated at (a) Hala Nagar, Juna Vadaj, (b) Subhash Nagar, Juna Vadaj, (c) RR Shukal ni Chali, Juna Vadaj, (d) Jhaveri Park Nat Na Chapra, Juna Vadaj, (e) Rohitdas Nagar, Juna Vadaj, (f) Dudhnath Mahadev, Juna Vadaj, (g) Juna Vadaj Circle and the petitioners therefore ought to be given the same treatment of in situ rehabilitation. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents would invite the attention of the Court to the notice and submit that TP Scheme No.28 has become part of the Final Scheme and, therefore, part of the Act. Final Plot No.536 has been reserved for community hall and, therefore, the Court cannot accept a challenge to the plot under the Town Planning Scheme which has become final. He would further invite the attention of the Court to the CAV Judgment dated 22.8.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No.8810 of 2007 and allied matter of the Division Bench, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, in the submission of Mr. Trivedi, held that the petitioners were encroachers. He would therefore submit that the policy of 18.7.2013 would not be available to the petitioners. 8. Inviting the attention of the Court to the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent No.2, a tabular form has been given by the deponent submitting that the petition has become infructuous by virtue of the figures reflected in the table which read as under: Total number of petitioners 61 Petitioners that are allotted alternative accommodation 60 Petitioners that have willingly and consequently handed over the premises to the respondent No.2 and the same has been demolished 54 Petitioners that have taken possession and are residing at the alternative residential premises 32 Petitioners who have been allotted alternative accommodation, however, have not approached the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take possession of the alternative residential premises 29 Petitioners that have expired 16 Petitioners that have neither given possession of their premises nor have taken possession of the alternative residential premises. 1 9. Inviting the attention of the Court to the affidavit, he would submit that the very same petitioners had preferred Special Civil Application Nos.8810, 8811, 8859 and 14564 of 2007 which were dismissed. He would submit that in the years 2012-13, Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission was formed pursuant to which a draw was held on 14.2.2014, wherein, 129 persons residing on the subject land were selected for allotment of plots at EWS Aavas Yojna at Vasna and Vatva. As far as Final Plot Nos.572, 573 and 574 at Vadaj, Ahmedabad of the TP Scheme No.28 are concerned, they are reserved for the purposes of burial ground and garden. As far as Final Plot Nos.572, 573 and 574 at Vadaj, Ahmedabad of the TP Scheme No.28 are concerned, they are reserved for the purposes of burial ground and garden. Since the occupants of those final plots were removed, they were provided alternative accommodation at Final Plot Nos.113 and 114. Some of the persons residing at Final Plot Nos.572, 573 and 547 at Vadaj had filed Special Civil Application Nos.14552 of 2014 and 2117 of 2015 which came to be disposed off by the orders of 19.11.2014 and 4.2.2015. Pursuant to the order of 4.2.2015, the occupants of those survey numbers were to be given allotment and, therefore, the allotment made initially in favour of the petitioners were cancelled as the direction was so issued by this Court. Reading the affidavit-in-reply, Mr. Trivedi would further contend that the houses to be constructed at the Ramapir Na Tekra would have been allotted to in situ persons of the Ramapir Na Tekra and once the petitioners have had a tag of encroachers, they have no right to a particular place and allotment of Chandkheda needs to be accepted. 10. Considering the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the following undisputed question of fact would persuade the Court to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 10.1. Though Mr. Sethna would contend that the tag of encroachers cannot continue to operate even after the order of this Court in the year 2007, the fact remains that reading the order of the Division Bench indicates that as far as in the year 2007 itself it was the stand of the Corporation that Final Plot No.536 - TP Scheme No.28 (Nava Wadaj) was reserved for the community hall under the TP Scheme which had become final after having been sanctioned on 5.3.1982. Having been so sanctioned and become a part of the Act, the same was not a subject-matter that could be gone into by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10.2. The land i.e. Final Plot No.536 by virtue of Scheme is vested in the Corporation free from all encumbrances. Pursuant to the notices given, only few persons have applied. What is also evident from the order of the Division Bench that the petitioners were held as encroachers who had occupied the land only after the year 1986. 10.2. The land i.e. Final Plot No.536 by virtue of Scheme is vested in the Corporation free from all encumbrances. Pursuant to the notices given, only few persons have applied. What is also evident from the order of the Division Bench that the petitioners were held as encroachers who had occupied the land only after the year 1986. The Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 22.8.2007 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.8810 of 2007 and allied matter held as under: “9. After having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having gone through the memo of petitions, affidavit-in-reply, rejoinder affidavit and the documents produced before the Court, it appears to us that the petitioners have mainly challenged the notices issued by the respondent Corporation on 26.03.2007 in Special Civil Application No. 8810 of 2007 and notices dated 25.05.2007 in Special Civil Application No. 14564 of 2007. Despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the petitioners, they were not in a position to establish their ownership rights over the properties nor they were in a position to produce any title to the properties. The petitioners are, therefore, considered to be encroachers. Even then the respondent Corporation has made it very clear in the reply that if there was any document in possession of the petitioners showing that they have been staying at their present premises prior to 1976, in that case as per the Scheme framed by the Corporation, they are providing alternative accommodation to them. The documentary evidences which are produced before the Corporation by some of the petitioners showing their stay prior to 1976 were under the scrutiny of the Corporation and it was admitted before the Court in the reply that those persons will be given alternative accommodation. In view of the stand taken by the Corporation in the affidavit-in-reply, nothing further is required to be done in the present petitions. 10. As far as legal submissions made by Mr. In view of the stand taken by the Corporation in the affidavit-in-reply, nothing further is required to be done in the present petitions. 10. As far as legal submissions made by Mr. Oza with regard to the challenge to the vires of the Town Planning Scheme being violative of the constitutional provisions contained in Section 243 ZE of the Constitution of India, we have already discussed at length this issue in our judgment and order of even date passed in Special Civil Application No. 24715 of 2006 and for the reasons recorded therein, we are of the view that the Town Planning Scheme sought to be implemented by the respondents pursuant to the development plan is not ultravires the Constitution. 11. We, therefore, do not find any substance or merits in any of these two petitions. Both these petitions are accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.” 10.3. As far as the entitlement of the petitioners for in situ rehabilitation is concerned, in view of the fact that the petitioners are occupying such land and are encroachers, no right by virtue of the GR dated 18.7.2013 could be available to the petitioners. 10.4. As far as the contention of Mr. Sethna that earlier allotments were cancelled though were made at Vasna Shahwadi Aavas Yojna, thereafter, it was changed to Aavas near Jupiter Mill, reading of the order of this Court dated 4.2.2015 would indicate that right would not have been suspended and in situ allotment was to be done to the allottees of the Final Plot Nos.572, 573 and 574 respectively. The petitioners being encroachers could not therefore claim priority of being allotted accommodation by virtue of rehabilitation at the place they are occupying the land which they were without any right. 11. As far as argument of Mr. Sethna with regard to the Ramapir No Tekro allotment is concerned or prioritizing their right via-a-vis in situ holders or residents of that Tekra would violate the policy vis-a-vis the rights of inhabitants or residents of Ramapir No Tekro and giving the petitioners priority at that place would strike at the policy itself. 12. In view of what is held herein-above, I find no reason to interfere with the action of the Corporation in allotting alternative accommodation at the place reflected in impugned notice dated 1.6.2019. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. 12. In view of what is held herein-above, I find no reason to interfere with the action of the Corporation in allotting alternative accommodation at the place reflected in impugned notice dated 1.6.2019. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. However, a request is made by Mr. Bomi H. Sethna, learned counsel for the petitioners to extend interim relief for a period of four weeks since the same is operating for over two years, to which Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objects in view of the fact that the TP Scheme needs to be implemented. Considering the fact that the interim relief has been operative for over two years, the same shall remain in operation till 15.12.2021. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.