ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Nikhil S. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. B.T. Rao, learned advocate for respondent No.4. Perused the record. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the notice dated 27.11.2019 by the respondent No.3 – Deputy Estate and Town Planning Development Officer of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad. 3. The facts in brief are as under: It is the case of the petitioners that they are the tenants of the land situated at Town Planning Scheme No.23 Sabarmati Final Plot No.38 and Final Plot No.195 of Survey No.109 which originally constituted plots 36+38. By virtue of the Town Planning Scheme having come into force, the same is given Final Plot No.195. 4. Mr. Nikhil S. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that some of the similarly situated petitioners had approached this Court by filing SCA No.2032 of 1999 in which petition, it was the case of the petitioners that they were in occupation of the land in question prior to year 1976 and, therefore, they are entitled to alternative accommodation. In that context, the Court had observed that the petitioners were directed to approach the Corporation and the Corporation would show them alternative site and will handover such alternative site within a stipulated time. The statement by Mr. Vyas was that despite this direction, no compliance was reported by the Corporation in giving them alternative accommodation and rather than doing so, by the impugned notice dated 27.11.2019, the petitioners who were tenants on the land in question have been asked to vacate the land. A Civil Suit has also been filed before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. 5. It is the submission of Mr. Vyas that they are entitled to alternative accommodation, inasmuch as, what is evident from the order passed by this Court on 21.1.2021 is that the Corporation was called upon to report compliance of the order dated 11.8.2004. Mr. Vyas would submit that despite such an order, what has come on record is that the persons subsequent to the petitioners have been allotted accommodation, whereas, the petitioners have not been so given the benefit of the order of 11.8.2004. Mr. Vyas would submit that despite such an order, what has come on record is that the persons subsequent to the petitioners have been allotted accommodation, whereas, the petitioners have not been so given the benefit of the order of 11.8.2004. He would further invite the attention of the Court to the rejoinder affidavit filed with the petition. Documents have been annexed to the rejoinder in support of his statement that the petitioners were in fact in possession of the land prior to 1976 and, therefore, in accordance with the observations made by the Court in SCA No.2032/1999, the petitioners are entitled to accommodation on the alternative site. 6. Mr. Deep Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that in SCA No. 16167 of 2015 when the respondent No.4 had approached the Court for implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, directions were issued by this Court to implement the scheme in a particular time frame. The petitioner No.2 had filed LPA No.983/2016 which was dismissed. By an affidavit in due compliance of the order dated 21.1.2021, the Corporation has explained the process which it has undertaken for allotment of alternative sites to the petitioners. 7. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would take the Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 and submits that the petitioners as is evident from the photographs have already been evicted and the shanties have been demolished. In compliance of the orders of this court passed as early as in the year 2016, the respondent is still waiting for allotment of the Final Plot No.195 as prayed for in SCA No.16167 of 2015. 8. Perusal of the records of the petition would indicate that essentially the case of the petitioners is that they should be allotted alternative pieces of land pursuant to coming into force of the Town Planning Scheme No.23 at Sabarmati. The order dated 11.8.2004 would indicate that the petitioners were expected to approach the Corporation to offer them alternative sites. Carrying forward the intention of satisfying itself of the due compliance thereof, this Court on 21.1.2021 passed the following order. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Vyas for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Deep Vyas for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr. Bharat Rao for respondent No.4 through video conference. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Carrying forward the intention of satisfying itself of the due compliance thereof, this Court on 21.1.2021 passed the following order. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Vyas for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Deep Vyas for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr. Bharat Rao for respondent No.4 through video conference. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Deep Vyas is hereby directed to file an affidavit of competent officer of the Corporation placing on record the details of the compliance of order dated 11.08.2004 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2032 of 1999 and subsequent events which have taken place since 2004 till date with regard to allotment of the alternative land, as directed by this Court vide the aforesaid order as under: “4. In that view of the matter, the Corporation is directed to give alternative site to the petitioners as per their own policy and as per the order dated 03-03- 1999. For that purpose, the petitioners are directed to approach the Corporation within a period of 02 (two) weeks from today. The Corporation will show them alternative site and thereafter after completing all the necessary formalities the Corporation will hand over alternative site to the petitioners within a period of 08 (eight) weeks thereafter. 5. On giving the possession of the alternative site the petitioners are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land which is occupied by them, which is forming Town Planning Scheme, to the Corporation immediately and on getting the possession of the land in question from the petitioners, the respondent Corporation is directed to hand over the possession which is to be allotted to the respondent Nos.4 to 10 immediately.” Stand over to 4th February,2021.” 9. The relevant paragraphs i.e. para Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 of the affidavit dated 26.2.2021 filed by Mr. Chaitanya Jayantilal Shah need to be reproduced for the purpose of better understanding of this order. “2. At the further outset, it is submitted on considering the cause title of earlier petition i.e. SCA No.2032 of 1999, there appears to be one “Valji Jakshibhai Desai” (Petitioner No.2) who is a party in the present proceedings. Chaitanya Jayantilal Shah need to be reproduced for the purpose of better understanding of this order. “2. At the further outset, it is submitted on considering the cause title of earlier petition i.e. SCA No.2032 of 1999, there appears to be one “Valji Jakshibhai Desai” (Petitioner No.2) who is a party in the present proceedings. It is submitted that the captioned petition was filed, wherein, the said petitioner claimed lis being situated at original plot Nos.36 and 38 and further claim ownership comprising in Final Plot No.86, 191, 194, 195 and 196 and the petition was filed challenging the town planning proceedings and the said petitioners would be eligible to get alternative accommodation. 3. It is submitted that the said petition came to be disposed by an order dated 11.8.2004, wherein, the Corporation was directed to give the alternative accommodation as per its policy and the petitioners of the said petition were to approach Corporation and after showing alternative accommodation sites, necessary modalities were to be completed by the time mentioned. It is submitted that from the available record, it appears that the municipal Corporation had addressed communication of 4.9.2004 to the concerned petitioner herein, for due compliance, so as to enable necessary measures. Copy of the said communication dated 4.9.2004 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure – I. It is submitted that thereafter by communication of 8.6.2005, while mentioning the non-compliance by the said petitioner, it was requested for submission of the original documents of the survey prior to 1976, which would be paramount for completing the procedure of eligible accommodation and also mentioned having offered alternative accommodation sites, as mentioned in the said communication. Copy of the said communication dated 8.6.2005 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-II. 4. It is submitted that there was also a communication dated 10.6.2005 received by other occupiers, who had refused to take the alternative accommodation. Copy of the said communication is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-III. It is pertinent to mention that the survey number i.e. original plot number in question had merged within the boundaries of final plot Nos.86, 191, 194, 195 and 196 and there was also some part which merged under the Town Planning road. Copy of the part plans depicting the position are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-IV. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the survey number i.e. original plot number in question had merged within the boundaries of final plot Nos.86, 191, 194, 195 and 196 and there was also some part which merged under the Town Planning road. Copy of the part plans depicting the position are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-IV. 7. It is pertinently submitted that while undertaking the physical survey, wherein, there were different occupiers in the aforesaid property (Depicted Sketch No.46) and in the said petitioner found at a new property (Being Sketch No.34). Copy of the earlier notice accompanying the physical survey and subsequent notices accompanying (Depicting Sketch No.34 and 46) of physical survey accompanying the said notice is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-VI. It is submitted that, there appears to be the change of location and despite issuance of repeated notices, nor are the same complied, nor were documents produced by the petitioners. It is submitted that the benevolence of the policy, would be applicable for only those persons, at the site and same location and as such requisition of documents as required per the policy of 1976 were called for from the parties.” 10. A conjoint reading of the averments made in the affidavit would indicate that after due compliance, of the order passed in SCA No.2032 of 1999, the respondent – Corporation did pass an order on 21.9.2016. Even the LPA filed at the hands of one of the petitioners to challenge the direction for implementing the scheme and allotment of Final Plot No.195 to the respondent No.4 failed. 11. Perusal of the pleadings in the petition would indicate that in the petition except the statement that SCA No.16167 of 2015 filed, no reference is made to the order passed thereon. The order passed in SCA No.16167/2015 dated 21.03.2016 was challenged in LPA No.983/2016, wherein, the Division Bench in its order dated 5.2.2016 observed as under. Relevant paragraph i.e. paragraph Nos.12 to 15 are reproduced. “12. From the record, it is found that the implementing authority i.e Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has already issued notice as provided under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules as observed hereinabove. Said notice is received by one Rabari Jitendrabhai Valjibhai, who happens to be son of the present appellant, which is dated 16.09.2018. “12. From the record, it is found that the implementing authority i.e Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has already issued notice as provided under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules as observed hereinabove. Said notice is received by one Rabari Jitendrabhai Valjibhai, who happens to be son of the present appellant, which is dated 16.09.2018. However, no further order appears to have been passed by the respondent Corporation. 13. Considering the directions issued in Special Civil Application No.2032/1999 way back on 11.08.2004 (as per dictation the date is 03.03.1999), the Corporation has taken a decision that the appellant was eligible for an alternative accommodation. 14. In light of the aforesaid, the appeal is not entertained on merits, as the directions issued by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is called for. Further, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there is suppression of facts would not give any title or further right to the appellant and has not prejudiced the appellant. Even according to the appellant, he is not an owner of final plot, but only he claims to be the tenant. As provided under Section 67(b) of the Act, the rights in the land in question stands crystallized as per the sanctioned scheme. The implementing authority is duty bound to implement the scheme as it is already sanctioned. However, while doing so, the respondent Corporation is bound to follow the procedure as prescribed under t he Act and Rules. 15. However, considering the facts of the case, the appellant shall remain present before the Deputy Estate Officer, West Zone, on 18th February, 2019. In addition to that, as observed hereinabove, the Corporation shall also consider the plea of the appellant for an alternative accommodation as per the earlier order passed in Special Civil Application No.2032/1999. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from today. For the foregoing, the appeal is otherwise not entertained on merits and the same is hereby disposed of. Civil Applications stand also disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.” 12. Letters Patent Appeal at the hands of the petitioner has failed and Division Bench specifically observed that no interference needs to be called for except the fact that the Corporation shall consider for providing of alternative accommodation as per the directions issued in SCA No.2032 of 1999. 13. Civil Applications stand also disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.” 12. Letters Patent Appeal at the hands of the petitioner has failed and Division Bench specifically observed that no interference needs to be called for except the fact that the Corporation shall consider for providing of alternative accommodation as per the directions issued in SCA No.2032 of 1999. 13. The affidavit filed by one Mr. Chaitanya Jayantilal Shah dated 26.2.2021 of which extracts are reproduced hereinabove would indicate that what the Corporation found at the time of due compliance of the orders was that petitioners were not at site and the same property was being occupied by different occupiers. The same has been substantiated by Mr. Deep Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation by taking the Court through the notices at page Nos.159 and 161 of the affidavit which indicate that the petitioner No.2 - Valji Jakshibhai Desai was initially occupying plot No.46 and, thereafter seems to have migrated to plot No.34. It was in these circumstances that the Corporation found it difficult to implement the order of 11.8.2004, especially when it had to do so in compliance of the policy requirement of the year 1996. The affidavit would further indicate that no documents satisfactory to the requisites of the Corporation were produced so as to satisfy the requirements for due compliance at the hands of the Corporation. 14. The other aspect that needs to be kept in mind is that the petitioner of SCA No.16167 of 2015 (Respondent No.4 herein) has passed an order on 21.3.2016 for implementation of the scheme by allotting him Final Plot No.195. By filing this petition, the petitioners though had failed in their Appeal have sought to delay the implementation of Scheme. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim Relief stands vacated forthwith. Rule / Notice, if any, stands discharged. 16. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil Application also stands dismissed. 17. It is expected that the respondent - Corporation shall forthwith carry out the exercise to see that the order passed by this Court in SCA No.16167 of 2015 dated 21.3.2016 is implemented as expeditiously as possible.