JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The case of the petitioner is that the society is situated on original plot no. 29 and original plot no. 30 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (Vejalpur) and the preliminary scheme was sanctioned on 14.08.2002. The petitioner society against original plot no. 29 and original plot no. 30 has been allotted final plot no. 30/1 and 30/2. Based on the redistribution statement, the case of the petitioner is that the original plot no. 29 on survey no. 225 was 8902 sq. mtrs and the final plot 29 admeasuring 6855 sq. mtrs was yet not allotted and therefore the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 2919 of 2009 before the High Court where the High Court had directed the authority to hand over possession within three months. Since the respondent authority has failed to implement the scheme and allot 6855 sq. mtrs, a subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No. 6818 of 2002 has been filed and is pending. 2.2 The case of the petitioner is that notices have been issued under the Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976 on 27.12.2002, 17.02.2009 and subsequently on 17.12.2019, based on letters dated 10.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 by which the society has been asked to hand over possession of part of original plot no. 29 which is included in Final Plot No. 30/1 without handing over possession of Final Plot No. 29 which is part of original plot no. 29. 2.3 The case of the petitioner society is that though these notices were pertaining to Original Plot No. 29 while passing the impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to hand over possession of Original Plot No. 30 also while dealing with only Original Plot No. 29. 2.4 No opportunity of hearing has been provided qua Original Plot No. 30 and if some opportunity would have been so provided the petitioner would have drawn attention to the various litigations pending between the petitioner and the owners of Original Plot No. 30. No notices under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Act were given for hearing to the petitioner for Original Plot No. 30. No notices under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Act were given for hearing to the petitioner for Original Plot No. 30. Hence the decision dated 13.07.2021 directing that possession of Original Plot No. 30 be handed over is only after considering the proceedings considering the ownership and possession of Original Plot No. 29 and not Original Plot No. 30. 3. Heard Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State respondents, Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavaty, learned advocate for respondent no. 4. 4. Mr.Kaushal Pandya learned advocate for the petitioner would make the following submissions: (A) Mr.Pandya would submit that the provisions of Section 67, 68 and 69 of the Town Planning Act envisages examination of the land at site with the plan and then they will demarcate the final plots which are to be carved out from the Original Plots. On the basis of the holding of the original plots, final plots will be demarcated and allotted. The exercise is thereafter undertaken to give up original plots in exchange in final plots. (B) He would further submit that under Section 68 of the Town Planning Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules, summary eviction procedure would start after demarcating the plots. Notices will be issued under such provision. The notice under Section 68 of the Town Planning Act is centered around giving notices to the original plot holders as the notice is envisaged for taking over possession from owners or occupiers of original plot holders. He would therefore submit that since possession has to be taken over of the original plot, owners or occupiers need to be heard and their objections are to be considered. He would rely on the decision in the case of M/s. Babubhai and Company and others v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 732 . (C) The notice under Section 68 read with Rule 33 is a very important stage. After hearing the owners or occupiers of the property, proceedings of eviction are undertaken under Section 69 of the Act. (D) Once the proceedings have reached the stage beyond Section 69 read with Rule 34, the owner or the occupier shall loose all rights. (C) The notice under Section 68 read with Rule 33 is a very important stage. After hearing the owners or occupiers of the property, proceedings of eviction are undertaken under Section 69 of the Act. (D) Once the proceedings have reached the stage beyond Section 69 read with Rule 34, the owner or the occupier shall loose all rights. He would invite the attention of the Court to page 9 of the petition in context of the prayer made. Reading the prayer clause, he would submit that the prayer is to set aside the order dated 13.07.2021. This is so because it has been passed in context of original plot no.30 without hearing the petitioner. Inviting the attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 13.07.2021, Mr.Pandya would submit that the petition concerns original plot no.30 whereas, the order impugned in the petition talks only about the original plot no.29 being reconstituted as final plot no.29. He would then read the operative portion of the order and submit that the order talks about procedure being followed under Section 68 read with Rule 33 in context of taking over possession of the land which has been deducted and that the orders specifically states that notices were given to the owners and occupiers of such plots to substantiate their ownership rights, however, the owners/occupiers have failed to substantiate their claim and accordingly, order is passed for implementation of the scheme and the owners and occupiers of original plot nos.29 and 30 are directed to handover their possession within seven days. The hearing was entirely centering around Original Plot No.29 and not Original Plot No.30. (E) Reading the preface of the order under challenge, Mr.Pandya would submit that the Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned on 25.02.2019. What was evident on reading the notification is that part of the land was Final Plot No.30/1 merging into land of original plot no.29 of Revenue Survey No.225. The respondent no.4 applied on 13.10.2018 for enforcement of the handing over of the plot. For such purposes, according to the impugned order, notices dated 23.12.2002 and 17.02.2009 were given as possession of the holders of the original plot no.29, part of which merged in the Final Plot No.30/1 was not being handed over. Letters were written on 16.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 granting them an opportunity. For such purposes, according to the impugned order, notices dated 23.12.2002 and 17.02.2009 were given as possession of the holders of the original plot no.29, part of which merged in the Final Plot No.30/1 was not being handed over. Letters were written on 16.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 granting them an opportunity. He would therefore submit that notices of 23.12.2002, 17.02.2009 and the communications dated 16.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 ought to be considered only in context of Original Plot No.29 and not of Original Plot No.30. He would then take the Court to the notices dated 23.12.2002 and 17.02.2009. He would submit that these notices are issued to the original owners to give possession of the original plot no.29 as the same was merging in Final Plot no.30/1. There is no mention of a direction to the society to hand over the possession of the original plot no.30. In other words, the submission of Mr.Pandya was that this notice was essentially served for Original Plot No.29 and not connected with original plot no.30. He would refer to the orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2919 of 2009 in Misc. Civil Application No.899 of 2011. (F) Questioning the locus of the respondent no.4- Girish Natwarlal Patel, Mr.Pandya would draw the attention of the Court to the communication dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Corporation. He would submit that though the scheme was sanctioned in the year 2002, the respondent no.4 wrote a letter on 13.12.2018, pursuant to which, the petitioner society was called upon to handover possession of Final Plot No.30. He would submit that the respondent no.4-Girish Patel is not the owner of the land and his name does not appear in Form-F. He would submit that several litigations with regard to the land in question vis-a-vis the ownership are filed and pending. (G) He would submit that based on a document at page 44, it would be evident that the respondent no.4 does not find his name in the list of owners vis-a-vis survey no.230, Final Plot No.30, 30/1 and 30/2 and therefore the corporation cannot handover the possession as it has no power to decide the right, title or interest of the parties. (H) He would submit that the base of the notices and the letters is only for original plot no.29 whereas the final order directs handing over possession of original plot no.30 and therefore the order is bad. (I) Questioning the locus of the respondent no.4, Mr.Pandya would submit that the T.P.Scheme was sanctioned in the year 2002. The respondent no.4 became an owner of the piece of land of R.S.230 Original Plot No.30 (F.P.30/1) only in the year 2018 by virtue of a sale deed. The ownership of the Respondent is under a cloud by virtue of series of litigations and civil suits. No handing over of part of Original Plot No.30 as F.P. No.30/1 at his instance can be executed in favour just to satisfy the enforcement of the scheme when his ownership is under cloud. Relying on the decision in case of Bhatti Subhash Premjibhai v. Secretary Urban Development reported in 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC-228153, the submission would be that it is the petitioner who is the owner and respondent no.4 is the encroacher and since the society is the owner of such land it is the society’s right to be heard as far as O.P. No.30 is concerned of which F.P. No.30/1 is the reconstituted Final Plot. (J) Mr.Pandya would rely on the pending suit proceedings against the predecessors in title of the Original Plot No.30 and submit that not only are the suits pending filed by the petitioners claiming adverse possession, but even it is an admitted case by the respondent no.4 that the possession is with the petitioner. (K) Mr.Pandya has also filed his written submissions, the gist of which reads as under: Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner society has submitted that the society is in possession of Original Plot No. 30/paiki since 1988 however no notice under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules of 1979 has been served to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authority. He submitted that the procedure under section 68 read with rule 33 and Section 69 read with Rule 34 is O.P centric and is related to occupiers of O.P. Mr. Pandya submitted that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has no powers to travel beyond the sanctioned scheme and has to implement the scheme without variation and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Pandya submitted that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has no powers to travel beyond the sanctioned scheme and has to implement the scheme without variation and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. He submitted that the Corporation has no powers to decide the title or interest qua the land covered under the sanctioned scheme. Mr. Pandya further submitted that the private respondent no. 4 is no where a party in the pending litigations initiated before 2018. He submitted that the private respondent no. 4 has not produced sale deed, if any, entered into with original owners for the subject land. The private respondent no. 4 jumped into the present litigation wherein the petitioner is seeking only notice under Section 68 of the Act. Mr. Pandya submitted that the residential units have been constructed in the year 1988-89. There are swimming pool, children park, playground, common parking to the members of the society partly on Original Plot No. 30. The Corporation has also constructed RCC road in the society under the 80x20 scheme (public private partnership). He submitted that the total area of the Regular Survey No. 230 was 8902 sq. mtrs out of which land admeasuring 3840 sq. mtrs is in the possession of the petitioner society since 1988. The society has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 712 of 2001 before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Ahmedabad Rural against the original owners of the land admeasuring 3840 sq. mtrs of Survey No. 230 of moje: Vejalpur Ta. City Ahmedabad for the adverse possession of the land in question. He further submitted that on 25.12.2001, the Court Commissioner had visited the site/land in question and prepared panchnama wherein it is recorded that the various amenities for the use of members of the society is situated upon the land in question. Mr. Pandya further submitted that in the year 2009 the petitioner society came to know that the original owners of the land bearing Regular Survey No. 230/p have transferred the land which is in the possession of the petitioner Society to one Gita Gram Society pursuant to a decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 129/97. Mr. Pandya further submitted that in the year 2009 the petitioner society came to know that the original owners of the land bearing Regular Survey No. 230/p have transferred the land which is in the possession of the petitioner Society to one Gita Gram Society pursuant to a decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 129/97. The petitioner society thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No. 393 of 2009 to declare the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 129/97 as invalid and illegal on the ground that the land in question is restricted new tenure land and it could not be transferred as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act. Further, in the Regular Civil Suit Mo. 393 of 2009, a Court Commissioner had been appointed and panchnama was drawn on 04.07.2009. In the panchnama it is recorded that the amenities for the use of members of the Society are situated on the land in question. He submitted that the said suit is still pending before the concerned court. Mr. Pandya submitted that since the implementing authority had not given full possession of the Final Plot No. 29 admeasuring 6855 sq. mtrs, the petitioner society filed Special Civil Application No. 2919 of 2009 before this Court wherein this Court directed the authority to hand over the possession of Final Plot No. 29 to petitioner within three months vide order dated 25.02.2010. He submitted that despite the order of this court, the respondent authority failed to implement the scheme qua Final Plot No. 29 and therefore the petitioner was constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 6821 of 2012 for implementation of the scheme qua Final Plot No. 29. He submitted that the said petition is pending before this Court. Mr. Pandya submitted that the notices dated 23.12.2002 & 17.02.2009 as well as the letters dated 10.10.2019 & 16.10.2019 are confined to Original Plot No. 29 only, however, after formal hearing for change of possession qua Original Plot No. 29, the respondent Corporation has passed order dated 13.07.2021 to hand over the possession of Original Plot No. 30 also within seven days. 5. Mr.Anshin Desai learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms.Venu Nanavaty learned advocate appearing for respondent no.4 made the following submissions: (A) Mr.Desai would submit that the petitioner is misleading this Court on the facts. 5. Mr.Anshin Desai learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms.Venu Nanavaty learned advocate appearing for respondent no.4 made the following submissions: (A) Mr.Desai would submit that the petitioner is misleading this Court on the facts. Drawing the attention of the Court on the map at page 104, he would submit that Original Plot No.29 is survey no.225 which is given Final Plot No.29 which is of the petitioner society. He would submit that by way of a registered sale deed, Part of Original Plot No.29 on Survey No.230, now belongs to the respondent no.4 by virtue of the sale deed registered in his favour. (B) He would submit that though the land has been sold to the respondent no.4 and as a part of the implementation of the scheme, the petitioner has been handed over the possession of that part, in exchange the respondent no.4 would be entitled to the yellow strip of the land which initially formed part of OP No.29 which the petitioner is not handing over. (C) He would submit that the land in question has been purchased by the respondent no.4 after paying huge amount of premium and it has been discussed in the order impugned in the petition. Referring to the affidavit filed in proceedings after the order passed in Special Civil Application No.2919 of 2010, Mr.Desai would submit that another petition being Special Civil Application No.6821 of 2012 has been filed wherein the Corporation has stated that, that part of the transaction i.e. handing over the Final Plot No.29 in exchange of taking over part of the original plot no.29 as far as the petitioner is concerned is complete. He would rely on para 3 of the affidavit. He would submit that the argument of Mr.Pandya is absurd that the notice mentions only OP 29 and not OP 30 whereas, the petitioner has failed to appreciate that the notice was the combined notice of handing over possession of OP 29 vis-a-vis Final Plot No.29 and in exchange the petitioner handing over part Final Plot No.30/1 which in fact was the referred original plot no.30. The land of F.P. No.30/1 (Original Plot No.29) was merging into the lands of petitioner. (D) Mr.Desai would rely on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. Even the impugned order would refer to various civil suits and proceedings pending before the Courts. The land of F.P. No.30/1 (Original Plot No.29) was merging into the lands of petitioner. (D) Mr.Desai would rely on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. Even the impugned order would refer to various civil suits and proceedings pending before the Courts. He submits that the only alternative that the respondent has, is to take over the possession of F.P. No.31/O.P. 30 through the Corporation as the T.P.Scheme has became final. The petitioner is acting smart and though having taken over possession of the plot in exchange of its original plot viz. OP 29 for FP 29 will not hand over possession of a piece of land which is owned by the respondent no.4 and falls in FP No.30/1 and is part of the merged land in OP No.29. (E) Written Submissions filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 would read as under. (F) Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 would submit that pursuant to the finalization of the T.P Scheme the possession of Final Plot no.29 carved out from S.No. 225 and No. 230 – Respondent no.4’s land has already been handed over to the Petitioner Society whereas the Petitioner Society has not handed over possession of the portion of land carved out from their original plot no. 29 – S.No. 225 which is now falling in the Final Plot no.30/1 – S.No.230 which is to be given to the present deponent which is marked in Yellow as shown in the Map (at pg.no.104). (G) Mr. Desai has further submitted that the Society has instituted a suit being R.C.S no. 712 of 2001 against Vitthalbhai Visabhai Patel and others praying for injunction and adverse possession over land bearing survey number 230 admeasuring 3840 square meters and in the said suit the Exh.5 Application came to be rejected which was challenged by the present petitioner by filing Misc. Appeal no. 42 of 2003 before the Appellate Court. That vide order dtd. 15.10.2007, the Appeal also came to be rejected primarily on the ground that the Plaintiff-present Petitioner is unable to show any prima facie evidence of possessory ownership rights on S.No.230 and it is also observed that on the contrary the revenue records discloses that the defendants were and are the owners of S.No.230. (H) Mr. That vide order dtd. 15.10.2007, the Appeal also came to be rejected primarily on the ground that the Plaintiff-present Petitioner is unable to show any prima facie evidence of possessory ownership rights on S.No.230 and it is also observed that on the contrary the revenue records discloses that the defendants were and are the owners of S.No.230. (H) Mr. Desai submitted that as per the settled principles of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India when the Town Planning Scheme is finalized, the same should be implemented in accordance with provisions contained in the Act and Rules framed thereunder, parties have to act in accordance with the scheme, mere possibility of variation or any subsequent objection does not authorize the Corporation to avoid implementation the Scheme. (I) Mr. Desai has further submitted that so far as the implementation of the present T.P. Scheme is concerned the respondent corporation has followed due procedure under the provisions of the Town Planning Act which can be seen from the annexures to the present petition i.e notice dated 23.12.2002, notice dated 17.02.2009, reminders and communications in 2019, etc. (J) Mr. Desai submitted that the impugned order is passed after several reminders from the Corporation, opportunity given to both the parties to submit in detail orally and via written submissions and therefore it is absolutely incorrect for the Petitioner to state that no opportunity of hearing is granted. If the impugned order is perused the petitioner society as well as the Respondent no.4 herein have been granted full opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. (K) The Petitioner Society is claiming to be in possession of the open piece of land legally belonging to the present Respondent no.4 and the Petitioner Society is a stark encroacher on the land. The Petitioner has been consistent in its mala-fide conduct as they had successfully jumped the Caveat Application no.2038 filed by the present Respondent no.4 by filing the present petition without joining the present Respondent no.4 as party respondent despite having received the Caveat Application via Registered Post A.D and despite the Respondent no.4 being a party to the proceedings wherein the impugned order is passed. (L) Mr. Desai would rely on the following decisions: a. 2005 (12) SCC 649 – N. Nanalal Kiklwala and Anr. (L) Mr. Desai would rely on the following decisions: a. 2005 (12) SCC 649 – N. Nanalal Kiklwala and Anr. versus State of Gujarat and others b. 2010 SCC Online Guj 1337 – Magnajibhai Laljibhai Patel versus A.U.D.A. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the test of the order dated 13.07.2021 is to be made on whether the order is bad for it not complying with the procedure of a notice under Section 68 read with Rule 23 of the Town Planning Act in respect of Original Plot No.30. For a better understanding of the factual locational aspect of the plots situation it would be apt to go through the re-distributional statement annexed to the petition (Page 44). 7. The petitioner society is located on Survey No.225, which is Original Plot No.29. On the scheme being sanctioned on 14.08.2002, it was allotted Final Plot No.29 with an area of 6855 square meters. The respondent no.4’s land was at Survey No.230 and the Original Plot was Original Plot No.30. This Original Plot No.30 of Survey No.230 was purchased by the respondent no.4 from Vitthalbhai Visabhai and others in the year 2018. Part of Survey No.230 = Original Plot No.30 was allotted to the petitioner and the respondent no.4 was allotted Final Plot Nos.30/1 and 30/2. What is to be noted is that Final Plot No.30/1 was so rechristened out of Original Plot No.30 part of which was carved out of land of Original Plot No.29 falling within Final Plot No.30/Original Plot No.30 of Survey No.230. 8. Therefore, in lieu of the respondent no.4 handing over some portion of his land out of Survey No.230 - Original Plot No.30 to the petitioner, the petitioner was expected to handover land carved out of Survey No.225 = O.P. No.30 = F.P. No.30/1 initially carved out of Original Plot No.29. 9. The petitioner society appears to be in a tendency to keep litigations alive which is apparent from the number of petitions that it has filed on the Town Planning Scheme being sanctioned in the year 2002. First in point of time the petitioner society filed Special Civil Application No.1955 of 2002 for a direction that the T.P.Scheme Vejalpur is absolutely illegal and for a further direction to revise the scheme and drop the proposed road which was made to pass through the Final Plot No.29. First in point of time the petitioner society filed Special Civil Application No.1955 of 2002 for a direction that the T.P.Scheme Vejalpur is absolutely illegal and for a further direction to revise the scheme and drop the proposed road which was made to pass through the Final Plot No.29. The petition was disposed of on 12.02.2002 with directions that if objections are filed the same shall be considered before sanctioning the preliminary and the final town planning scheme. The T.P.Scheme became final on 14.08.2002. The representation was rejected on 30.09.2002. Two petitions being Special Civil Application No.45 of 2003 and Special Civil Application No.2203 of 2003 were filed and were disposed of on 11.07.2003 with a direction that if representations are filed, same shall be considered. It appears that Special Civil Application No.45 of 2003 was revived as the representation was once again rejected on 01.10.2003. The AUDA had filed an affidavit that Original Plot No.29 was not given Final Plot No.29 as same part of which was given to some other plot holders who lost their lands, however the society was allotteed certain other area in lieu of lost land which is the land area which went from the respondent no.4’s ownership to the society which was part of Original Plot No.30. By an order dated 08.04.2004, the petition was rejected. 10. The society once again filed Special Civil Application No.2919 of 2009. The petition was disposed of by giving certain directions. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the order dated 25.02.2010 as it could give a certain idea of the Original Plot versus Final Plot allotment scheme. The order dated 25.02.2010 reads as under: “Rule. Learned AGP, Shri M.R.Mengdey, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State and Shri H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners were owners of land bearing Survey No.225 – O.P. No. 8902 and on finalization of T.P.Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur, petitioners were alloted 6855 Sq.Mtrs of land. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners were owners of land bearing Survey No.225 – O.P. No. 8902 and on finalization of T.P.Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur, petitioners were alloted 6855 Sq.Mtrs of land. It appears that final plot No.29 is out of and/or comprising of certain portion of land bearing Survey No.225 as well as Original Plot No.230 (which is belonging to there encroachment) is some other persons and some and/or on portion which, of land bearing Survey No.225 is now forming part of final plot No.26, 27 and 28 which the petitioners are required to handover to the appropriate Authority. It appears that there is some encroachment on the land bearing Original Plot No.230 which now forming part of Final Plot No.29 and appropriate Authority is not handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of entire final plot No.29. 4. Shri Munshaw, learned advocate appearing on behalf respondent-Corporation has submitted that even the petitioners are also not handing over the possession of the land of original Survey No.225 which is now forming part of final Plot No.26, 27 and 28 and therefore, petitioners are also not performing their duty. 5. Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have never objected for handing over the possession of land to the respondent- Corporation of original Survey No.225 which is now forming part of final plot No.26, 27 and 28 and it is vacant land and they can take over the possession of the said land at any time and they do not claim any right, title and interest on the said land. 6. Now so far as handing over of peaceful and vacant possession of entire final plot No.29, admeasuring 6855 sq.mtrs. of Survey No.225 inclusive of the land out of the land bearing Survey No.230 is concerned, once T.P. Scheme statutory duty implement the has of the same and become final, appropriate handover the it is the Authority to peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to peaceful and vacant possession of the final plot No.29, ad-measuring 6855 Sq.Mtrs. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to peaceful and vacant possession of the final plot No.29, ad-measuring 6855 Sq.Mtrs. of land and by not handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of entire final plot No.29 (inclusive of the land arising out of the land bearing Survey No.230) it can be said that respondent- Authority has failed to perform its statutory duty. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions, once the scheme has become final, it is the statutory duty of appropriate Authority to handover the peaceful and vacant possession to the person as per the allotment made under the T.P.Scheme. 7. Under the application circumstances, is allowed. Present special civil Respondent- Corporation is hereby directed to implement the T.P.SCheme No.6, Vejalpur which has become final and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of entire final plot No.29 admeasuring 6855 sq.mtrs. inclusive of the land arising out of land bearing Survey No.230 which is now forming part of some portion of Final Plot No.29 to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the present order. Similarly, petitioner is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of Final Plot Nos.26, 27 and 28 out of original land bearing Survey No.225 immediately as stated above and/or of Respondent-Corporation to take possession of the aforesaid land from the petitioner immediately. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.” 11. The Court while recording details has observed that the society was allotted a Final Plot which was out of a certain portion of land bearing Survey No.225 as well as Survey No.230 (which belongs to some other persons and/or on which there is encroachment). What was also recorded was that some portion of land bearing Survey No.225 is now forming part of Final Plot No.26, 27 and 28 which the petitioners are required to hand over to the appropriate authority. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Court directed the Corporation to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of entire final plot no.29 admeasuring 6855 square meters inclusive of the land bearing survey no.230 which is now forming part of some portion of Final Plot No.29. Therefore, it is evident that some portion of Original Plot No.30 / Survey No.230 was to be handed over to the petitioner society. Therefore, it is evident that some portion of Original Plot No.30 / Survey No.230 was to be handed over to the petitioner society. Part of this land was of the erstwhile ownership of Vitthalbhai Visabhai the predecessor in title of the respondent no.4. The same shall be evident from the redistribution statement that is reproduced hereunder: S. No. Name of the owner Survey No. Original Plot Final Plot Number Area Sq.Mtr Number Area Sq.Mtr 36 New Prabhupark Co. Op. Housing Soc. Ltd. 225 29 8902 29 6855 37 Santokben @ Widow of Visabhai Manilal Vitthalbhai Visabhai Vinodbhai Visabhai Rasikbhai Visabhai Minor Dinesh Visabhai Shakriben Visabhai Manguben Visabhai Kantaben Visabhai Lalitaben @ Widow of Ratilal Punjabhai 230 30 8903 30/1 30/2 3536 3325 6861 12. From this, it is evident that the entire exercise involved a give and take formula involving Final Plot Nos.26 to 30. The society which had land on Survey No.225 was to give O.P./F.P. No.26, 27 and 28 and in lieu get some portion of Survey No.230 Final Plot No.30 which was Original Plot No.30. 13. The society filed a 5th petition in line being Special Civil Application No.68211 of 2012 with a prayer to implement the Town Planning Scheme No.6, Vejalpur with regard to Final Plot No.26, 27, 28, 29, 30/1, 30/2 and for a direction to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the entire Final Plot No.29 admeasuring 6855 square meters inclusive of land arising out of land bearing Revenue Survey No.230. The said petition is pending. 14. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit in reply on 02.07.2012 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under: “2. The respondent No.4 submits that the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur is sanctioned by the State Government on 14/09/2002 and it has accordingly come into force. The respondent no.4 submits that the Scheme has become the part of the end. The respondent No.4 craves leave to add that so far as the present petitioner Society is concerned, nothing is required to be done as it is handed over the possession of land of final plot No.29 carved out of revenue survey No.225 & 230 of Village Vejalpur. The respondent No.4 craves leave to add that so far as the present petitioner Society is concerned, nothing is required to be done as it is handed over the possession of land of final plot No.29 carved out of revenue survey No.225 & 230 of Village Vejalpur. The respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner Society was originally the owner and in possession of revenue survey No.225 as well as revenue Survey No.230 as per the revenue record and the averments made by the petitioner society in the memo of Special Civil Application are thoroughly baseless. It is stated that under the Preliminary T.P.Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur, the final plot No.29 is comprising of part of revenue survey no.225 admeasuring 5197 sq.meters and part of land bearing revenue survey No.230 admeasuring 1658 sq. meters. It is submitted that as per the revenue record, the revenue survey No.225 of Village:Vejalpur belongs to the Society while as admitted and abide by the petitioner Society the revenue survey No.230 is disputed land, but the same is in possession of the Society. It is stated that as such the land of both the survey numbers are in physical possession of the Society. In view of this while implementing and executing the Town Planning Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur so far as the petitioner society is concerned, the possession of the land of final plot No.29 is to be given to the Society as such only on paper after following due procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act. The respondent No.4 craves leave to annex herewith the copies of part plan, Form-F as well as notification dated 14.08.2012 issued by the respondent No.1 sanctioning the preliminary T.P. Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur on 14/09/2002 and marked as Annexure-E collectively. 3. The respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner Society is to be given notice U/s. 67 & 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act and such notices are given on 27/12/2002 and 17/02/2009 and the copies thereof are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-F collectively. It is submitted that so far as the land bearing revenue survey No.230 of Village Vejalpur is concerned, as mentioned herein above, no physical possession of the land is to be given to the petitioner Society as it is already with the Society. It is submitted that so far as the land bearing revenue survey No.230 of Village Vejalpur is concerned, as mentioned herein above, no physical possession of the land is to be given to the petitioner Society as it is already with the Society. It is further stated that the alleged encroachment on the said land is possessed by the Society and the encroachments on the land is during the possession of the land by the society and therefore, the same is not required to be removed by the respondent No.4 authority while executing & implementing the Town Planning Scheme No.6 of Village Vejalpur. 4. The respondent no.4 submits that part of the land of revenue survey No.225 has become the part of final plot No.27 & 28 of T.P. Scheme No.6 of Village Vejalpur. It is submitted that the petitioner Society is not handling over the possession of the part of the land of revenue survey No.225 which has become a part of final plot No.26, 27 & 28 of T.P. Scheme No.6 of Village:Vejalpur.” 15. Reading the above extract indicates that the Final Plot No.29 which is handed over to the petitioner society is carved out of survey no.226 and survey no.230. The same comprise of 5197 square meters of survey no.225 and part of land being survey no.230 admeasuring 1658 square meters (Survey No.230 is Original Plot No.30). It is a categorical statement of the Corporation that as per revenue record, the revenue survey no.225 belongs to the society while as admitted by the society, the revenue survey no.230 is a disputed land but the physical possession is with the society. The affidavit states that no physical possession is to be given to the petitioner society as it is already with the society. The encroachments if any are to be removed by the society as the land is in its possession. As per the affidavit in reply of respondent no.4 herein and reading the impugned order it is clear that the society itself in a civil suit filed claims adverse possession and also there is a challenge to the sale deed in favour of respondent no.4 by the defendant- Vitthalbhai Visabhai against whom the society has claimed adverse possession. As per the affidavit in reply of respondent no.4 herein and reading the impugned order it is clear that the society itself in a civil suit filed claims adverse possession and also there is a challenge to the sale deed in favour of respondent no.4 by the defendant- Vitthalbhai Visabhai against whom the society has claimed adverse possession. Therefore what is evident is that the obligation to hand over possession of land part of Survey No.230 carved out as part of Final Plot No.30 is already in possession of the petitioner. 16. It is also made out from the Corporation’s affidavit that the society is not handing over possession of the part of land of revenue survey no.225 which has become part of Final Plot No.26, 27 and 28 of Scheme No.6 of Village:Vejalpur. 17. It is also necessary to reproduce the contents of a further affidavit filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No.6821 of 2012 which reads as under: “1. The respondent No.4 most respectfully submits that during the hearing of the present proceedings, the Hon’ble Court has directed to provide complete details about revenue survey No.230 of Village:Jodhpur. The respondent No.4 humbly states that revenue survey No.230 of Village Jodhpur stands in the name of Mr. Vithalbhai Visabhai and others in revenue record of Jodhpur Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the same is re-numbered as revenue survey No.136 and copies of comparative chart and Village Form No.7 & 12 with regard to revenue Survey No.136 of Village Jodhpur as on 01/07/2012 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A collectively. 2. The respondent No.4 states that the area of Revenue Survey No.230 of Village Jodhpur was 8903 sq. meters and as against that original plot No.30 of identical size was given while preparing T. P. Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur. Thereafter final plot No.30/1 and 30/2 admeasuring 3536 and 3325 square meters were allotted against original Plot No.30 in preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur. In other words, the original land owner Mr. Vithalbhai Visabhai and others of revenue survey No.230 were allotted final plot No.30/1 & 30/2 admeasuring 3536 and 3325 sq. meters of T.P.Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur and a copy of sketch is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. 3. In other words, the original land owner Mr. Vithalbhai Visabhai and others of revenue survey No.230 were allotted final plot No.30/1 & 30/2 admeasuring 3536 and 3325 sq. meters of T.P.Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur and a copy of sketch is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. 3. The respondent No.4 submits that so far as petitioner Society is concerned it is allotted final plot No.29 admeasring 6855 square meters of T.P. Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur. At this stage, it is stated that in all 110 square meters of land of revenue survey No.230 has become a part of final plot No.29 and it would be so clear from a kind perusal of sketch and yellow marked portion. The respondent No.4 further states that possession of Final Plot No.29 is already with the petitioner society as it is carved out revenue survey no.225 of village:Jodhpur. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is to be noted that possession of 110 sq. meters of land of original revenue survey no.230 of village Jodhpur has become part of final plot no.29 in the sanctioned T.P.Scheme No.6 of Vejalpur. The respondent no.4 craves leave to make it clear that land i.e. 110 sq.meters which has become part of final plot no.29 is not yet handed over to the petitioner society as there are encroachments on the said land. The respondent no.4 has tried its best to see that said encroachments are removed and earlier letters were also addressed to District Collector, Ahmedabad by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. It is further stated that further actions will be taken by the respondent no.4 to see that encroachments are removed and possession of that much land i.e. 110 square meters is handed over to the petitioner society. 4. The respondent No.4 most respectfully submits that so far as implementation of T.P.Scheme No.6 and the society in question are concerned, the petitioner is to be handed over only 110 square meters of land as mentioned herein above. However, society has yet not handed over the possession of “C” portion of Final Plot No.26, “F” portion of Final Plot No.30/2, “D” portion of Final Plot No.27 and “E” portion of Final Plot No.28 which are original part of revenue survey no.225 and now have become a part of final plot nos.26, 27, and 29. However, society has yet not handed over the possession of “C” portion of Final Plot No.26, “F” portion of Final Plot No.30/2, “D” portion of Final Plot No.27 and “E” portion of Final Plot No.28 which are original part of revenue survey no.225 and now have become a part of final plot nos.26, 27, and 29. It is submitted that the said Final Plot No.26, 27 and 28 are allotted to other parties and for implementation of T.P.Scheme No.6, the respondent no.4 is required to take over the possession of C, D, E and F portion admeasuring 2567 sq. mt. Of Final Plot No.26, 27 and 28 as the same are carved out of revenue survey no.225 of Village:Jodhpur, the original owner of the society. In other words, the respondent no.4 submits that petitioner on one hand is not handing over the possession of huge piece of land to enable Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to implement the T.P.Scheme No.6 and on the other end, contesting the matter repeatedly only for 110 sq.meters of land of Final Plot No.29. It is stated that total area of Final Plot No.29 is 6855 sq.meters and barring 110 sq.meters, entire land is possessed by the society.” 18. Reading of the above makes it clear that; (I) Revenue Survey No.230 stands in the name of Vitthalbhai Visabhai which is now renumbered as revenue survey no.136. (II) The area of Revenue Survey No.230 was 8903 square meters against which Original Plot No.30 was given while preparing T.P.Scheme. (III) Final Plots No.30/1 and 30/2 admeasuring 3536 square meters and 3325 square meters were allotted against Original Plot No.30 in Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. In other words, owner Vitthalbhai Visabhai of Revenue Survey No.230 was allotted Final Plot No.30/1 and 30/2. (IV) 110 square meters of land of Revenue Survey No.230 has became part of final Plot No.29 on which there are encroachments which is part of the entire area of 6855 square meters allotted and in possession of the petitioner society. The society is not handing over possession of Final Plot Nos.26 to 28. 19. Reading of the impugned order dated 13.07.2021 would indicate that it is the petitioner’s contention that the society has filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 2001 in context of the total area of land admeasuring 3840 square meters of Revenue Survey No.230. The society is not handing over possession of Final Plot Nos.26 to 28. 19. Reading of the impugned order dated 13.07.2021 would indicate that it is the petitioner’s contention that the society has filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 2001 in context of the total area of land admeasuring 3840 square meters of Revenue Survey No.230. This land is admittedly in possession of the society. Another Regular Civil Suit No.393 of 2009 is pending. 20. The conspectus of the holdings that emerge is that; (a) Original Plot No.29 of survey No.225 became Final Plot No.29 by carving out some land out of Survey No.230 i.e. Original Plot No.30/1 and 30/2. (b) The part of Original Plot No.30 of Survey No.230 carved out to be Final Plot No.29 is already in possession and handed over to the petitioner society. (c) The respondent no.4 was a subsequent purchaser of that part of land from Vitthalbhai Visabhai. (d) Admittedly, part of Original Plot No.29 has merged into Final Plot No.30/1 which was Original Plot No.30. (e) Land belonging to the petitioner society is: Original Plot No.29 (Survey No.225), Final Plot No.29 (Survey No.225 and 230) = 6855 square meters. (f) Land belonging to the respondent no.4 is; Original Plot No.30 / Final Plot No.30/1 = 3536 square meters (Survey No.230), Original Plot No.30 / Final Plot No.30/2 = 3525 square meters (Survey No.230), 21. This position is also better explained by the Map and the same notes as under: Petitioner’s original survey no.225 = O.P. No.29 = F.P. No.29 i.e. the portion marked in Green. Respondent No.4’s original survey no.230 = O.P. No.30 = F.P. No.30/1 i.e. the portion marked in Red. The petitioner has taken over possession of the final plot portion covered on three sides which is outlined in Green which includes the portion outlined in blue i.e. portion on left side on the number 30/1. The above portion in blue outline actually belonged (original plot) to the Respondent no.4 who has handed over peaceful and vacant possession since long to the Petitioner Society. The small triangle strip marked/outlined in Yellow where 107 is written is the area which is to be handed over by the Petitioner Society to the Respondent no. 4. This yellow colored striped is encroached by the Petitioner Society who is not handing over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent no. 4. 22. The small triangle strip marked/outlined in Yellow where 107 is written is the area which is to be handed over by the Petitioner Society to the Respondent no. 4. This yellow colored striped is encroached by the Petitioner Society who is not handing over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent no. 4. 22. The contention of the petitioner that notices dated 23.12.2002 and 17.02.2009 and the consequential order dated 13.07.2021 is “O.P. Centric 29” and not “O.P. Centric 30” is misconceived. Both notices dated 23.12.2002 and 17.02.2009 when read in context of the entire T.P.Scheme and narration in the reply of the Corporation reproduced extensively herein above would indicate that these notices mention exchange of lands of Original Plot No.29/F.P. No.29, Original Plot No.30/F.P. No.30/1 : 30/2, F.P. No.26/27/28. And the entire scheme of reconstitution of Original Plots into Final Plots would indicate that land carved out of the Original Plot No.29 of Survey No.225 is now falling in Final Plot No.30/1 of Survey No.230, which was Original Plot No.30. The contention therefore of Mr.Kaushal Pandya that the impugned order fails the test of law laid down in the case of Babubhai and Company (supra) is misconceived. The petitioner’s attempt to lead the Court into believing that suddenly the handing over of Original Plot No.30 figures in the final order without a notice under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act is misconceived. When the notices are read, the jigsaw falls in place when what is evident is that they talk about the entire concerted exercise of exchange of lands in dividing Original Plot No.30 of Survey No.230 which is now F.P.No.30/1 which is carved out of Original Plot No.29 of Survey No.225. 23. The society’s attempt of filing litigations and petitions referred to in the earlier part of this order when read with the stand of the corporation make out a clear attempt repeatedly to stall full implementation of the Town Planning Scheme of 2002. 24. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- with a direction to the Corporation to forthwith implement the order dated 13.07.2021 within two weeks from today. BIREN VAISHNAV, J FURTHER ORDER Heard Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavaty learned advocate for respondent no. 4. 24. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- with a direction to the Corporation to forthwith implement the order dated 13.07.2021 within two weeks from today. BIREN VAISHNAV, J FURTHER ORDER Heard Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavaty learned advocate for respondent no. 4. In view of the observations made in paras 22 to 24, request for interim relief is rejected.