ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- A. Admit and allow this petition. B. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus and quash and set aside the impugned Notice dated 28.01.2020 Ref. No. EST/ TPS(DRAFT)/EXE/ NWZ/65/140 and as well as quash and set aside the impugned Notice dated (03.03.2020 Ref. No. EST/TPS(DRAFT)/EXE/NWZ/65/110 both above issued under the Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 to the petitioners by the Assistant Estate Officer/Asst. Corporation. T.D.O, Ahmedabad Municipal 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 demand or take the possession of the strips of lands for the construction of road in respect of the TPS No.65 in the FP No.156/1 & 156/2 of block/survey No.55 and the FP No.224 of block/survey No.122 (Jagatpur- Chenpur-Tragad-Chandkheda) from the petitioners in any manner without following the provisions of law 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 proceed with any construction of road or any other activity which would change the nature of the land bearing old block/survey No.55 and old block/survey No. 122 pendente lite. E. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus and direct the respondent authorities to consider in true spirit the representations/objects of the petitioners and take necessary/appropriate actions in respect of the TPS No.65 in the FP No.156/1 & 156/2 of block/survey No.55 and the FP No.224 of block/survey No.122 (Jagatpur- Chenpur-Tragad Chandkheda). F. Pass such other and further necessary relief/s as the circumstances of the case may require. 2. The background of facts on which the petition is brought before the Court is that the petitioners are joint owners and occupants of old Survey No.55 bearing Final Plot (FP) Nos.156/1 and 156/2 and old Block/ Survey No.122, bearing FP No.224 of village Jagatpur, District Ahmedabad. 2. The background of facts on which the petition is brought before the Court is that the petitioners are joint owners and occupants of old Survey No.55 bearing Final Plot (FP) Nos.156/1 and 156/2 and old Block/ Survey No.122, bearing FP No.224 of village Jagatpur, District Ahmedabad. The respondent authority by virtue of the provisions contained under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) has implemented the Town Planning Scheme No.65- Jagatpur- Chenpur- Tragad- Chandkheda in old Block/ Survey No.55, bearing FP Nos.156/1 and 156/2 and in old Block/ Survey No.122 bearing FP No.224 of village Jagatpur and after such implementation, entire block/ Survey No.55 came to be divided into two Final Plots, namely 156/1 and 156/2, and accordingly, each final plot admeasured 12191 Sq. Mtrs. 3. On account of such action of implementation of the Town Planning Scheme under Section 48(2) of the Act, the petitioners being aggrieved by said action made a representation to the Senior Urban Planning Officer of AUDA on 2.5.2013 and raised serious objections in respect of the Town Planning Scheme No.65 insofar as it relates to FP Nos.156/1 and 156/2 of Block / Survey No.55 as well as Final Plot No.224 of Block/ Survey No.122, as stated above by contending that the decision to divide Block No.55 into two parts is clearly an unlawful action. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not given a personal hearing on the issue and it was also contended that the Chief Urban Town Planning Officer of AUDA agreed to construct 12 meter road in Block/ Survey No.117, which is just behind FP Nos.156/1 and 156/2 and Final Plot No.224 instead of constructing in Block No.155. As a result of this, on 12.8.2013, the petitioners addressed another letter to the Chief Urban Town Planning Officer, AUDA urging to allot Final Plot No.224 of Block/ Survey No.122 behind FP Nos.156/1 and 156/2 of Block No.155 and requested to take necessary steps in this regard. As a result of this, on 12.8.2013, the petitioners addressed another letter to the Chief Urban Town Planning Officer, AUDA urging to allot Final Plot No.224 of Block/ Survey No.122 behind FP Nos.156/1 and 156/2 of Block No.155 and requested to take necessary steps in this regard. According to the petitioners, the Chief Urban Town Planning Officer of AUDA did not take any step as deliberated, but then after a lapse of two years or so, the Assistant Estate Officer/ Assistant TDO abruptly issued notice on 18.5.2015 with regard to Final Plot Nos.156/1 and 156/2 of old Block/ Survey No.55 and in regard to Final Plot No.224 of old Block No.122 to the petitioners. Against the said notice, the petitioners raised strong objections vide two separate letters of even dated 2.6.2015. These objections have not been dealt with at all and merely kept lying idle in the office and later on, a notice came to be issued on 28.1.2020 as well as notice dated 3.3.2020 under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules by the Assistant Estate Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in respect of Town Planning Scheme No.65- Tragad- Chandkheda-Chenpur (Ranip) in Final Plot No.224 of Survey No.122. The petitioners vide letter dated 4.2.2020 raised further objection in respect of the said notice issued under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Rules drawing the attention about the earlier objections which are already on the file and further, have also pointed out that during the course of hearing, the Chief Urban Town Planning Officer of AUDA had agreed to construct 12 meter road in Block No.117 behind Final Plot Nos.156/1 and 156/2 as well as Final Plot No.224, as indicated above. But, the said objection/ reply dated 4.2.2020 has also remained dormant and no attention was made, which has constrained the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs, as stated herein-before. 5. This petition was entertained by issuance of notice on 12.10.2020 and after completion of the pleadings, same has come up for hearing, wherein both learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides have requested the Court to take up the matter for its disposal. As a result of this, with aforesaid background, the petition was taken up for hearing. 6. Learned advocate Mr. As a result of this, with aforesaid background, the petition was taken up for hearing. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the impugned notices dated 28.1.2020 and 3.3.2020 are unfair, arbitrary, lacks of proper appreciation of the objections raised by the petitioners and as such, same being violative of principles of natural justice, deserve to be quashed and set aside. It has been contended further that the premises in question which the petitioners are occupying as joint owners and occupants and are also paying regularly taxes to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, having electricity connection as well and not encroachers nor unauthorized occupants of the land in question and as such, before issuance of the impugned notices, these relevant facts ought to have been noticed by the authority. It has been further contended that at the time the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.65 came to be made, no prior consent of the petitioners was taken, neither any notice was served upon the petitioners nor any opportunity was given and as such, the entire exercise is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Satta has further contended that it is open for the authority only to lawfully deduct 40% of the land and not more than that, even if the scheme is to be introduced. Whereas, here, in the present case, if the circumstances are to be examined at length, original Block No.55 came to be divided into two final plots, namely Final Plot Nos.156/1 and 156/2, and from each of said two final plots, an area of 7315 Sq. Mtrs. came to be deducted, meaning thereby, total deduction is apparently beyond 40% in any case of the total area and as such also, the entire exercise has been vitiated and on account of this deduction, which has taken place, original Block No.122 has become of triangular shape and as such, its utility has been diminished. It has further been contended that it was suggested by the petitioners that in this total area of 14630 of FP No.156/1 and 156/2 (Block/ Survey No.55),said Final Plot be of 13419 Sq. Mtrs. and remaining area of land be merged with Block/ Survey No.122 and then Final Plot Block No.22 to be made of 2000 Sq. Mtrs. for the reason that Survey / Block No.22 can become of Square shape. Mtrs. and remaining area of land be merged with Block/ Survey No.122 and then Final Plot Block No.22 to be made of 2000 Sq. Mtrs. for the reason that Survey / Block No.22 can become of Square shape. It is submitted that there is Kuldevi of Chamunda temple in Block No.22 and if request in this form as suggested by the petitioners is considered, the temple would be saved and can be remained as it is. After considering the aforesaid circumstance, as per the say of learned advocate, even the Chief Town Planning Officer had consented to construct such 12 meter road in Block No.117, which is just behind Final Plot No.156/1 and 156/2 and Final Plot No.224 instead of constructing the said road in Block No.155 and as such, by way of a specific letter dated 12.8.2013, request was made by giving proper measurement. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Satta has further submitted that by virtue of the notice dated 18.5.2015, the petitioners have been asked to remove the construction from the land in old Survey Nos.55 and 122 and handover its vacant possession to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, to which a strong protest was made vide letter dated 2.6.2015, but the authorities have remained silent on this. It has been contended that the concerned respondent authority has erroneously interpreted Section 48(2) of the Act. It was also specifically pointed out that the petitioners are joint owners and occupants of Survey No.55 of village Jagatpur and that they are cultivating the same and taking agriculture produce. Further, in Block No.55, FP No.156/2 has been allotted after leaving 24 meter road on its East Final Plot No.156/1, and therefore, in that event, there is no question of removing the construction or handing over the possession by the petitioners to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Mr. Satta has submitted that the original sketch shows Final Plot No.224 and according to the petitioners, Final Plot No.224 is allotted in the land of Survey No.122 and as such, the said notice has no reference to Survey No.122 and as such, also, there is no question of removing the construction or handing over the possession. In addition to this, Mr. In addition to this, Mr. Satta has submitted that the authorities while taking alleged action have not allotted any alternative land at free of costs in lieu of the houses as well as the temple belong to the petitioners and even no attempts have been made to acquire the said land by applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 and as such, this being the situation, the impugned action deserves to be quashed. Mr. Satta has further submitted that the authorities are inclined to take steps without making any alternative arrangement for shifting of the temple to nearby place or elsewhere and as such by virtue of the provisions of the Town Planning Act, it is not open to conclude the action in absence of the aforesaid measures. Mr. Satta has further submitted that the impugned notices are not in consonance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2000(1) GCD 501 , which is clearly observed in para 4 and as such, the impugned notices are without jurisdiction and not fulfilling the test as propounded by the Court in the aforesaid decision and as such, the said action is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioners were and are enjoying the land in question since many years and taking of such arbitrary action against the petitioners is tantamount to infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India. As a result of this, the action is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Satta has relied upon the following decision to strengthen his submissions:- (1) In the case of Navinbhai Ramubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (0) AIJEL-HC 225447; (2) In the case of Sepal Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 (0) GLHEL-SC 55276; (3) In the case of Shamjibhai Ramjibhai Kevadia Vs. Town Planning Officer reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 238307 (4) In the case of Manilal Devjibhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, Through Secretary reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL- HC 239298; (5) In the case of Raju S. Jethmalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (0) GLHEL-SC 34951; (6) In the case of Purshottambhai Chandubhai Gajera Vs. Town Planning Officer reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 238307 (4) In the case of Manilal Devjibhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, Through Secretary reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL- HC 239298; (5) In the case of Raju S. Jethmalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (0) GLHEL-SC 34951; (6) In the case of Purshottambhai Chandubhai Gajera Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1999 (0) GLHEL-HC 209766 No other submissions have been made. 9. As against the aforesaid stand of the petitioners, learned advocates Mr. Dhaval Nanavati as well as Mr. Deep D. Vyas appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 authority has vehemently opposed the petition and contended that it is not open for the petitioners to interfere with the action of the respondent authorities which is in the public interest and what kind of road and to what extent it is to be carved out is not the function of the petitioners to agitate and since the action is in the public interest, it is not open for the petitioners to agitate. Mr. Vyas has vehemently opposed the petition by drawing the attention to the affidavit-in-reply which has been submitted on record, affirmed by Deputy Estate Officer Mr. Pareshbhai B. Patel and has contended that the land in question comprises under the Town Planning road of 30 meter and also over crossroads having junction of 12 meters road. It is submitted that with respect to the land on crossroad, the same comprises within the pockets from Jagatpur Railway Crossing to Godrej Garden City, where all encumbrances and the road have already been removed since there is a requirement of construction of over-bridge. The aforesaid road of 30 meters, as mentioned in Annexure-R1, has been stated to be prepared strategically commuting from Chenpur via Jagatpur Cross leading to S.G Highway, at length of around 2.5 kms, wherein the petitioners as asserted occupy the parcels of land. It has been contended that the Town Planning road is vital and essential part of the development of the scheme and thereafter imperative requirements, adhering to public utility and convenience, the petition need not be entertained. It has been contended vehemently that draft Scheme was prepared by following the procedure under Section 42(1), the same was published in the Government Gazette on 13.5.2013 and also published in ‘Divya Bhaskar’ and ‘Gujarat Samachar’ newspapers on 17.5.2013. According to Mr. It has been contended vehemently that draft Scheme was prepared by following the procedure under Section 42(1), the same was published in the Government Gazette on 13.5.2013 and also published in ‘Divya Bhaskar’ and ‘Gujarat Samachar’ newspapers on 17.5.2013. According to Mr. Vyas, the said draft Scheme was thereafter submitted, which came to be sanctioned by the State Government, vide notification dated 17.12.2014 and as such, on sanctioning the said draft Scheme, the land has been vested with the Corporation, free from all encumbrances. It has been submitted that within the areas, there is a requirement of urban planning and basic amenities, which the authority is required to entail necessary infrastructure and to resolve traffic problems as well. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has further submitted that under the draft Scheme, the petitioners claim to occupy the parcels of the land in the Town Planning road, wherein in part of the land comprising in original plot No.224 thereof ending construction, whereas in original plot No.224, some part is vacant and as such there is sufficient remaining place available with the petitioners from their land. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has vehemently contended that on sanctioning of the draft Scheme the land would vest in the Corporation, i.e. the land vests with the implementing authority and as per the provisions Section 48(A) of the Act, notices dated 29.1.2020 and 5.3.2020 were issued for implementing the Scheme for the purposes of under clause (c), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-Section (3) of Section 40 of the Act. It has been contended that after providing requisite opportunity in respect of their objections, final orders also came to be passed on 22.8.2020 and 13.1.2021, which orders are already attached to the affidavit at Annexure-R5 and as such, the contention raised in the petition in the present form does not required to be entertained. 12. It has been further contended that even otherwise, the petition is filed purportedly claiming private interest, which in view of the settled position cannot override the public interest, more particularly when the scheme has already reached at its advanced stages. 12. It has been further contended that even otherwise, the petition is filed purportedly claiming private interest, which in view of the settled position cannot override the public interest, more particularly when the scheme has already reached at its advanced stages. By referring to the order which has been passed by the authority, a contention is raised that due opportunity was very much given to the petitioners and as such, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, which can be agitated and be that as it may, the order dated 13.1.2021 is clearly indicating that there is hardly any circumstance available for the petitioners to raise the grievance. Mr. Vyas then has further drawn the attention to the affidavit-in-reply which has been filed to deal with the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners and has reiterated the stand and has added that under the circumstances, stated above, when major chunk of land is available with the petitioners, which can be utilized, there is hardly any reason for the petitioners to raise the grievance. Mr. Vyas has then relied upon certain decisions which are passed by the Courts, which appear to have been attached from page 111 of the petition compilation along with the reply to the affidavit-in-rejoinder. Same are: (1) In the case of Ramanbhai Hargovinddas Limbachia and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2016(3) GLR 2694; (2) In the case of Govindbhai Hirabhai Surati Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003(0) GLHEL-HC 203816; (3) In the case of Bharatbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Vs.; State of Gujarat through Secretary reported in 2012(0) GLHEL-HC 226449; (4) Decision dated 20.3.2018 in a group of petitions, headed by Special Civil Application No.3359 of 2018; (5) Decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.4.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.401 of 2018. 13. By referring to this, a specific contention is raised that the petition does not deserve to be entertained and same requires to be dismissed in the overall public interest as well. 14. 13. By referring to this, a specific contention is raised that the petition does not deserve to be entertained and same requires to be dismissed in the overall public interest as well. 14. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the circumstances which are apparently visible from the record, stated hereunder, deserve consideration before finally coming to the conclusion:- (1) The main grievance appears to be of the petitioners, which is also stated in the representations, is that on account of implementation of the Town Planning Scheme No.65, Block/ Survey No.55 is divided into two parts, namely Block Nos.156/1 and 156/2. The grievance is that this has been unilaterally done by the authority without giving opportunity to the petitioners. It has also been mentioned that on account of this division, the deduction, which has taken place, is beyond 40%, which is impermissible and further, it has been agitated that in lieu of the aforesaid allotment, if the land after carving, if to be allotted from Block/ Survey No.122, in addition and Final Plot admeasuring 2000 Sq. Mtrs. can be made, same would be in a proper square portion and the temple which is used for offering prayers of Kuldevi, Shri Chamunda Mata, same can be maintained and religious sentiment may not be adversely affected. (2) It also appears to have agitated that there appears to be a pending suit on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), being Regular Civil Suit No.175 of 2012, and as such, ultimately requested to allot 2000 Sq. Mtrs. plot from Block / Survey No.122, so that the religious sentiment can also be protected. This is reflecting from Annexure-C of the petition compilation and same appears to have been reiterated even in the subsequent representation and as such, by raising such grievance and other multiple contentions, as stated above, a request is made to grant the relief. (3) However, at this stage, if the stand of the authority is to be considered, a detailed affidavit-in-reply, which is filed by the authority, is reflecting that the land in question comprises under Town Planning road of 30 meter and also over cross roads having junction of 12 meter road. (3) However, at this stage, if the stand of the authority is to be considered, a detailed affidavit-in-reply, which is filed by the authority, is reflecting that the land in question comprises under Town Planning road of 30 meter and also over cross roads having junction of 12 meter road. Further, with respect to the land of crossroad, same comprises with pockets from Jagatpur Railway Crossing to Godrej Garden City, where all encumbrances and the road have already been removed since there is a requirement of land for construction of over-bridge, which is a public purpose of immense importance. Copy of the said communication about necessity of bridge project is also annexed at Annexure-R1. (4) It has further been submitted by the authority that the aforesaid road of 30 meter has been strategically prepared by the experts commuting from Chenpur via Jagatpur Cross leading to S.G Highway, at length of around 2.5 kms, in which petitioners assert occupying the parcels of land. For the purpose of vital and significant Town Planing road has necessitated the authority to take action in this context and as such, in view of the fact that the public purpose is sought to be achieved, the petitioners have to sub-merge their private interest. (5) Additionally, the authority has also categorically stated that the intention of the Town Planning Planning Scheme No.65 was declared on 14.8.2012, which was also published in Government Gazette on 22.8.2012 and even public notices have also been given ion ‘Sandesh’ as well as ‘Divya Bhaskar’ newspapers way back on 24.8.2012. So much so, the owners’ meeting was also held on 22.4.2013 after publishing in advance the same on 21.4.2013. It is further case of the authority that the Draft Scheme was prepared after following proper procedure, as contemplated under the Act, and the same was also published under Section 42(1) of the Act in the Government Gazette on 13.5.2013 as also in ‘Divya Bhaskar’ and ‘Gujarat Samachar’ newspapers in vernacular language on 17.5.2013. This draft Scheme after proper procedure was also sanctioned by the State authority, for which a notification was issued on 17.12.2014. Hence, in view of such sanctioned of the draft Scheme, the lands have vested with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. So, based upon such process which has been carried out, the authority has proceeded with and contemplated the action. Hence, in view of such sanctioned of the draft Scheme, the lands have vested with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. So, based upon such process which has been carried out, the authority has proceeded with and contemplated the action. (6) It also appears clearly from the stand of the authority that the claim of the petitioners to occupy parcel of the land is in the Town Planning road, wherein, in part of the land comprising in original plot No.224 thereof ending construction, whereas in original plot No.224 is vacant and as such there is sufficient remainder place available for the petitioners from their land. (7) Upon sanction of the draft Scheme, the land would vest in the Corporation free from all encumbrances, i.e. the land vests with the implementing authority and as such, in view of Section 48(A), notices dated 29.1.2020 as well as 5.3.2020 came to be issued and the same have been issued for the purpose of implementing the sanctioned scheme for the purposes under Clauses (c), (f), (g) or (h) of Section of sub-section (3) of 40 of the Act and Section 48 would automatically vest in the appropriate authority as per Section 48(A) of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules. It is clearly asserted, which is not possible to be disputed by the petitioners, that after providing requisite opportunity and considering the objections raised by the petitioners, even final order also came to be passed on 22.8.2020 as well as 13.1.2021, which orders are also attached to the petition compilation along with the reply affidavit at Annexure-R5. 15. Considering the aforesaid prevailing situation, a perusal of even the orders which have been passed at length by the authority after extending full opportunity to the petitioners, would also clearly reflecting that not only there is a clear application of mind but also the orders have been passed in close-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Necessary consequences may fall back upon the petitioners. But, mere hardship or effect to the petitioners’ private interest would not be a ground to set aside the impugned notices which have been issued in close conformity with the provisions and the procedure established by law. Necessary consequences may fall back upon the petitioners. But, mere hardship or effect to the petitioners’ private interest would not be a ground to set aside the impugned notices which have been issued in close conformity with the provisions and the procedure established by law. When it appears that the land is needed for the public purpose, in view of the settled position of law, the private interest always should be sub-merged and that being the situation, it is difficult for the Court to accept the stand of the petitioners even if there appears to be some prejudice. Hence, when the action is initiated in close conformity with the established procedure, in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the same is taken after due consideration of all the objections which have been raised and in close conformity with the principles of natural justice, it is not for this Court to dislodge the findings of the authority in exercise of the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court. The law on the issue of exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very much well defined by catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, the Court is not in a position to accept the sand of the petitioners. 16. In light of the aforesaid background of circumstances, as stated above, when even after the challenge to the impugned notices, a further order is passed at length in which, undisputedly, the petitioners have participated in the process of adjudication of the grievance and said exercise of powers by the authority are also in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the procedure by law established. There appears to be no legal infirmity in the action sought to be challenged before this Court by way of the present petition. 17. The aforesaid analysis of background of fact would lead to a conclusion that there appears to be no merit in the stand taken by the petitioners. There appears to be no legal infirmity in the action sought to be challenged before this Court by way of the present petition. 17. The aforesaid analysis of background of fact would lead to a conclusion that there appears to be no merit in the stand taken by the petitioners. Several judgments have been placed before this Court for consideration, but the background of the aforesaid circumstance would clearly indicate that none of the decisions, which have been cited, are of any assistance to the petitioners, especially when the background of fact is quite distinct from those cases, vis-a-vis the case on hand and as such, having perused the said decisions cited by the petitioners, the Court is of the opinion that no case is made of to interfere. On the contrary, there are decisions attached to the reply to the affidavit-in-rejoinder, reflecting on page 107 onwards, the law is succinctly clear enough to discard the stand taken by the petitioners. Those decisions upon perusal have not inspired any confidence in the stand taken by the petitioners. On the contrary, in a decision in the case of Vimlaben Ramsagar Mishra v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine 6413, is indicating clearly that if action is sought to be initiated in respect of performing statutory duty and pursuant to the sanction of the Scheme, such action under Section 66 read with Rule 33 of the Rules initiated by the implementing agency, no relief of injunction be granted, otherwise such kind of relief would tantamount to be restraining the Corporation from performing the statutory duty cast upon them for implementation of the Town Planning Scheme. Here, in the instant case, no malafides are alleged against the authority and further even in a group of petition, headed by Special Civil Application No.15298 of 2017, decided on 18.7.2018, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also not entertained the grievance raised by the petitioners of the said petitions. The relevant observations contained in para 11 and 12 are sufficient enough to indicate that there appears to be no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Since the Court has considered the observations contained in para 11 and 12, the same are reproduced hereunder:- 11. The relevant observations contained in para 11 and 12 are sufficient enough to indicate that there appears to be no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Since the Court has considered the observations contained in para 11 and 12, the same are reproduced hereunder:- 11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that where the draft scheme has been sanctioned by the Government, the lands required for the purposes specified in the clauses (c), (f), (g) or (h) of Section 40(3) would automatically vest in the appropriate authority as per Section 48(A) and that the person, who is not entitled to occupy the land under the sanctioned draft scheme can be summarily evicted under section 48-A(3) of the said Act, on the analogy of the provisions contained in section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules. When the Statutory vesting takes place as contemplated in Section 48-A(1) of the said Act, the petitioners could not insist that they should be simultaneously handed over possession of the final plots proposed to be allotted to them under the Draft Scheme, before they are evicted from the subject lands. The purposes mentioned in Clauses (c), (f), (g) and (h) of Section 40(3) are the public utility services, and therefore the statutory vesting under Section 48A(1) of the lands earmarked for such purposes is automatic. It is axiomatic that salus populi suprema lex that regard be had to be public welfare, is the highest law. The respondent authorities have sought to exercise their powers under section 48-A(3) read with section 68 and Rule 33 after following due process of law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the all concerned including the petitioners. Hence, it could not be said that the respondent no.2- Corporation has acted arbitrarily or without any authority of law while issuing impugned notices and passing the impugned orders. 12. The Court therefore does not find any substance in the petition. However, it is expected that the Town Planning Officer shall expedite the process of finalizing the Town Planning Scheme, and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the final plots proposed to be allotted to the legal owners or occupiers as the case may be. 18. The aforesaid observations are also based upon the consideration of several decisions delivered in past on the issue. 18. The aforesaid observations are also based upon the consideration of several decisions delivered in past on the issue. Hence, considering the aforesaid set of circumstance and in view of the conjoint effect of the background of fact, this Court is of the opinion that present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is DISMISSED. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any granted, stands vacated forthwith.