JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. This intra-Court Appeal arises out of order dated 05.07.2017 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application No.12798 of 2016 filed by the present five appellants - Harishbhai Tapubhai Shekhava, Parshottambhai mangabhai Thakore, Dilipbhai Parshottambhai Thakor, Bhupendrabhai Parshottambhai Thakor and Vihaji Mangaji Thakor. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal in a nutshell are as under. 2.1 The Appellants - Petitioners claimed their alleged rights over the land in question, situated at Vejalpur-2, on the basis of an Agreement to Sell executed by Vendor, who was not a party before the learned Single Judge, in their favour in the year 1986, for which the Appellants – Petitioners claimed that they have filed a Civil Suit for specific performance after 30 years in 2016 namely, Civil Suit No. 567 of 2016, which is pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in which, the issues are yet to be framed and hearing on the Injunction Application is to take place. The same Vendor appears to have executed and registered a Sale-Deed in favour of a third party, one Mr. Hanubhai Ramjibhai Sanghai, which Sale Deed is also said to have been challenged in the same Suit for specific performance namely, Civil Suit No.567 of 2016. 3. The Appellants - Petitioners further claimed that the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation served the impugned Notice-cum- Order dated 31.03.2016 under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 seeking to evict them from the said site in question on the ground that a public road was to be widened to the extent of 24 Mtrs. at the said place and to protect their right of possession, which they claimed through the said Agreement to Sell of 1986. The Appellants - Petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by way of aforesaid Writ Petition, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned before us and hence the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants - Petitioners, Mr. The Appellants - Petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by way of aforesaid Writ Petition, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned before us and hence the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants - Petitioners, Mr. Vikram J. Thakor, submitted that the appellants - petitioners have not encroached any part of the Road intended to be widened and under the Preliminary Scheme and Final Scheme announced by the Town Planing Authority under the provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, the Final Plot and Original Plot over which the Appellants - Petitioners are claiming their rights, is the same and therefore, the Appellants - Petitioners being within the boundary of the said plot of land in question, are not encroachers of the land in question anyways, and therefore, the impugned notice given by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation deserves to be quashed and set aside leaving the rights of the parties under the Agreement of 1986, to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid Civil Suit. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that the Appellants - Petitioners deposited the fees for regularization of some construction raised by them on the said land in question, as the possession of the land in question was given to them by the Vendor and receipts of Rs.10,000/- each for three of such petitioners are produced on record. The said Receipts are dated 14.06.2004. He submitted that these payment of fees for regularization would not have been taken by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, if the Appellants - Petitioners had encroached upon any part of the public road, and therefore, it should be presumed that the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has regularized the said construction over the land in question belonging to the Appellants - Petitioners. However, no such order of regularization was passed and had it been passed, it was for the Appellants – Petitioners to place the same on record. 6. However, no such order of regularization was passed and had it been passed, it was for the Appellants – Petitioners to place the same on record. 6. After the dismissal of the Writ Petition, in the present intra-Court Appeal, an interim order came to be passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.09.2017 in terms of prayer clause 3(B) in Civil Application No.12624 of 2017 with the condition that the Appellants - Applicants shall not alter the construction and shall also not alienate or transfer the land in question in favour of any third party. The said ad-interim order dated 25.09.2017 was continued till further orders and is continuing even now. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Deep D.Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation urged that after framing of the Scheme by the State Government, in terms of the provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976, such Scheme forms part of the Act itself, by virtue of deeming provisions of Section 65(3) of the Act and Section 67 of the said Act provides that on the day on which the Preliminary Scheme comes into force, 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. Clause (b) of Section 67 further provides that all rights in the Original Plots which have been re-constituted into Final Plots shall determine and Final Plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has further drawn our attention to Section 68 of the said Act, which provides power to the appropriate authority to summarily evict the occupants of the land in question, which vests with the State Government in terms of Section 67 of the Act. He submitted that the impugned Notice was given to the Appellants – Petitioners under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, which was challenged by the Appellants – Petitioners before the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that the rights of the Appellants – Petitioners have not yet crystallized under the Agreement to Sell of 1986, for which a Civil Suit is said to be pending, and therefore, the title of the Appellants – Petitioners on the said land is not established anywhere. He further submitted that the rights of the Appellants – Petitioners have not yet crystallized under the Agreement to Sell of 1986, for which a Civil Suit is said to be pending, and therefore, the title of the Appellants – Petitioners on the said land is not established anywhere. He has further submitted that no order for regularization of construction has ever been passed in favour of the Appellants – Petitioners, for which the Receipts of Rs.10,000/- were produced before this Court. Therefore, no right on that basis can be claimed by the Appellants – Petitioners. The learned counsel for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, therefore, submitted that the work of widening of the public road at all other places has been completed, except for the portion on which the appellants – petitioners are claiming such a right which does not exist with them and because of the interim orders granted by this Court, the said work in the public interest could not be completed so far. He therefore, prays for dismissal of this intra-Court Appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel at length and upon perusal of the material on record and statutory provisions, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the present Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. The rights of the Appellants – Petitioners over the land in question are even by now subject matter of a Civil Suit said to have been filed by the Appellants – Petitioners for specific performance under an Agreement to Sell executed by the Vendor way back in the year 1986. The said Civil Suit itself, admittedly has been filed after 30 years, in the year 2016 and is said to be pending as Civil Suit No.567 of 2016 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in which, even the issues are yet to be framed. The land in question is already transferred to a third party under the Registered Sale Deed. Thus, as far as the private civil rights of the parties are concerned, it is a matter of adjudication by the competent Trial Court. 10. The land in question is already transferred to a third party under the Registered Sale Deed. Thus, as far as the private civil rights of the parties are concerned, it is a matter of adjudication by the competent Trial Court. 10. Be that as it may, the cause of action which arose before the learned Single Judge, was in pursuance of the impugned action taken by the respondent - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for widening of the Road to the extent of 24 Mtrs., which is undoubtedly in public interest and therefore, land under the Scheme framed under the provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, could be so acquired and vested with the State irrespective of the final determination of the private civil rights of the parties. Even if the Appellants – Petitioners are on the land as occupiers, the authority concerned was entitled to remove and summarily evict them from the land in question. The claim of the Appellants – Petitioners that they have not encroached upon any part of the public road, is itself, a disputed question of fact on which we do not find any findings from any Competent Authority or Court of law in favour of the Appellants – Petitioners that their claimed possession is not on any part of the public Road in question under the Scheme framed by the State / Town Planing Authority under the provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976. On an inchoate right claimed under the Agreement to Sell of 1986, in our opinion, the Appellants – Petitioners could not challenge such action on the part of the concerned Municipal Corporation or Urban Development Authority to take the land in question for the larger public interest of widening of the Road in question. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellants – Petitioners on the basis of Receipts of Rs.10,000/- paid as Application Fees for regularization of their construction to the Urban Development Authority, is absolutely misconceived, as despite our question, the learned counsel for the Appellants – Petitioners could not bring to our notice any regularization / order passed by any Competent Authority on the basis of such Application Fees of Rs.10,000/- might have been paid by the Appellants – Petitioners. Therefore, nothing turns on the said Documents / Receipts of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, nothing turns on the said Documents / Receipts of Rs.10,000/-. Neither the said Vendor of the Agreement to Sell of 1986 nor the purchaser under the Registered Sale Deed of 2012, which are said to be subject matter of the aforesaid Civil Suit filed by the Appellants – Petitioners, have been made a party in the present litigation for the reasons best known to the Appellants – Petitioners. If at all, any consideration on the facts of the case was to be made, these parties were necessary or proper parties to be arraigned before this Court as well. Keeping them in dark and claiming their rights over the land in question, renders or makes the Appellants – Petitioners approaching this Court without disclosing the complete and true facts and that dis-entitles them to any equitable relief under jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is notwithstanding the legal position being clear that such respective civil right cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction at all and therefore, it is only appropriate for the Appellants – Petitioners to establish their rights whatever they are in the Trial Court. 12. As far as the action against the public bodies or authorities is concerned, we do not find any illegality or malafide exercise of powers on the part of the respondent authorities qua the present Appellants – Petitioners, and therefore we do not find any error in the rejection of Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present intra-Court Appeal has no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellants – Petitioners, after the dictation of this order in the Court itself after hearing, made a request for staying of the operation of this order for some time and also made a request that the observations made may not affect the Civil Suit. Both the requests are misplaced and cannot be acceded to. The same are turned down. The Trial Court has to proceed for trial in accordance with law.