Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 701 (GUJ)

Jagdishbhai Lakhubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2025-07-09

D.N.RAY, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. 2 The present petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(A) By a writ of mandamus and/or by a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction, it is declared that the acquisition from the petitioner's land of Revenue Survey no. 31/1/Paiki (old Survey No. 42/1) under the provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT is illegal, ultra vires and bad in law. (B) By a writ of mandamus and/or by a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed not to deduct the area of 379 sq. mtrs. of the acquired land under the provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT from the are of the original plot being Revenue Survey no. 31/1/Paiki (old Revenue Survey no. 42/1) of the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and be directed not to (Illegible) the area of the original plot which was shown in the sanctioned draft town planning scheme dated 25.06.95. (C) By a writ of mandamus and/or by a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction, it be declared that variations made in the area of the original plot of the petitioner, being Revenue Survey no. 31/1/Paikee (old Revenue Survey no. 42/1) from 1240 sq. mtrs. to 430 sq. mtrs. is illegal, bad in law and is ultra vires the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and also ultra vires the power, authority and jurisdiction of the Town Planning Officer under the said Act. (D) By a writ of mandamus and/or by a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or by any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the State of Gujarat be directed not to sanction the variations made in the original plot of the petitioner of Revenue Survey no. 31/1/Paiki (old Revenue Survey no. 42/1) from 1240 sq. mtrs. to 430 sq. mtrs. and be directed to reject the said variation while sanctioning the preliminary scheme. (E) Pending the admission and final hearing of this writ petition, the State of Gujarat be restrained from sanctioning the reduction and/or variation of the area of the original plot of the petitioner being Revenue Survey no. 31/1/Paiki (old Revenue Survey no. mtrs. to 430 sq. mtrs. and be directed to reject the said variation while sanctioning the preliminary scheme. (E) Pending the admission and final hearing of this writ petition, the State of Gujarat be restrained from sanctioning the reduction and/or variation of the area of the original plot of the petitioner being Revenue Survey no. 31/1/Paiki (old Revenue Survey no. 42/1) from 1240 sq. mtrs. to 430 sq.mtrs.” 3. The petitioner herein claims to be the purchaser of the land in question namely Survey No. 42 (revised Survey No.31/1/Paiki), which was part of the Draft Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government on 25.06.1995. As per the statement made in the writ petition, the petitioner had purchased an area of 1240 sq. mtrs. forming part of the original plot No. 42 (New No.31/1 Paiki). It may be noted, at the outset, that the copy of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 11.04.2000 is not on record. It is, however, stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had purchased all the rights, title and interest existing in the Revenue Survey No.42/1 of Village Magdalla, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat from the then owner, namely Manharbhai Govanbhai, and, as such, the petitioner became absolute owner of the land in question within the meaning of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (in short, referred to as “Town Planning Act, 1976” ). 4. As regards the first prayer made in the writ petition, it is contended in the writ petition that Section 4 and 6 Notifications had been published without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to raise his objections under Section 5A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. The objections dated 27.08.1998 filed by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer had not been decided. Moreover, the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT could not be sustained as the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.7 was already sanctioned by the State Government which included the lands purchased by the petitioner. 5. To deal with the said challenge, we may simply note that the acquisition notifications under Section 4 and 6 are dated 23.10.1997 and 23.07.1998 for an area of 379 sq. mtrs. 5. To deal with the said challenge, we may simply note that the acquisition notifications under Section 4 and 6 are dated 23.10.1997 and 23.07.1998 for an area of 379 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.42/1 for construction of road, and the acquisition proceedings have been brought to its logical end with the making of the award dated 31.08.2000. There is no prayer in the writ petition to the validity of the acquisition notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. Moreover, no such challenge was made by the original owner and the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser of the land purchased after the acquisition proceedings were conducted by publication of the notification under Section 4 and 6, cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others , (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governer of Delhi and others , (2008) 9 SCC 177 . 6. The prayer ‘A’ made in the writ petition seeking for a declaration that the acquisition of an area of 379 sq. mtrs. from Revenue Survey No.42/1 (New No. 31/1 Paiki) under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was illegal, ultra vires and bad in law, therefore, is found misconceived, and hence rejected. 6.1. The further prayer ‘B’ in the writ petition seeking a direction not to deduct the area of 379 sq.mtrs of the acquired land from the original plot No.42/1 (New Survey No. 31/1 paiki), therefore, is not untenable. 6.2 The only issue, thus, remains of the allotment of Final Plot No. 103 admeasuring 430 sq. mtrs. in lieu of Old Revenue Survey No.42/1 (New No.31/1/Paiki), under the Town Planning Scheme by the Town Planning Officer. It was vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Town Planning Officer has committed an error of law in deduction of not only an area of 379 sq. mtrs. from the original plot of the petitioner which was total admeasuring 1240 sq. mtrs., but during the course of variation, a lesser area of 430 sq. mtrs. was allotted. The submission is that even if it is accepted for a moment that the acquired area of 379 sq. mtrs. from the original plot of the petitioner which was total admeasuring 1240 sq. mtrs., but during the course of variation, a lesser area of 430 sq. mtrs. was allotted. The submission is that even if it is accepted for a moment that the acquired area of 379 sq. mtrs for the purposes of construction of road, was required to be deducted from the total area of 1240 sq. mtrs., the remaining area of the original plot would come to 861 sq. mtrs. The allotment of the Final Plot No.103 under the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme for an area of 430 sq. mtrs., therefore, cannot be justified by the Town Planning Officer. 7. The Attention of the Court is invited to the Page No.’77’ of the paper-book to submit that the Town Planning Officer himself had proposed for an area of 640 sq. mtrs. for allotment of final plot considering the area of original plot being 800 sq. mtrs. The original plot No. 88 given in the Town Planning Scheme to the Revenue Survey No. 31/1/ Paiki (New) can be seen in the table extracted at Page No. ‘77’ of the paper-book of the communication made by the Town Planning Officer while issuing notice under Rule 26(2) of the rules framed under the Town Planning Act. 8. Further referring to Page No. ‘91’ of the paper-book, the learned Senior Counsel appering for the petitioner would submit that specific objections have been taken by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner by sending a reply dated 29.04.2003, but there had been no adjudicaiton. And, as a result of it, this Court by a detailed order dated 11.07.2024 taking note of all relevant factors brought on record has remitted the matter to the Additional Chief Town Planning Officer, the Officer on Special Duty and Ex-officio, Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat to examine the objections filed by the petitioner dated 29.04.2003 to the notice dated 24.04.2003 after providing personal hearing to the petitioner. 9. We may note that on relagation of the matter by this Court, an order dated 07.10.2024 has been passed by the concerned officer. The description as given in the order dated 07.10.2024 with regard to the Survey No.31/1/Paiki (New, 1240 sq. mtrs.) as claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner, is to the effect that: (i) The area measured as 431 sq. The description as given in the order dated 07.10.2024 with regard to the Survey No.31/1/Paiki (New, 1240 sq. mtrs.) as claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner, is to the effect that: (i) The area measured as 431 sq. mtrs was not included in the boundary of Town Planning Scheme No. 7 . (ii) The area 379 sq.mtrs. has been acquired for Palsana Sachin Magdalla Road. (iii) The area 430 sq. mtrs. only was included in the Town Planning Scheme No.7. The total of the above comes to 1240 sq.mtrs., which was claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 11.04.2000. 10. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is no clarity as to how the abovenoted statement has been made in the order dated 07.10.2024 specifically about an area of 431 sq. mtrs not being included in the boundaries of T.P. Scheme No.7. The contention is that this statement has come on record for the first time in the order dated 07.10.2024 and it was never communicated to the petitioner. The submission is that above mentioned new stand taken by the officer in deciding the claim made by the petitioner for allotment of a larger area in lieu of total area of 1240 sq. mtrs. of the original plot, subject matter of Town Planning Scheme No.7, cannot be given due consideration by this Court. There is, thus, no justification for rejection of the representation dated 29.04.2003 made by the petitioner, asking for allotment of a larger area of the final plot in lieu of the Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki (original plot No.88), that the area suggested by the Town Planning Officer at the time of submission of the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. 11. The submission, thus, is that the prayers made in the writ petition for allotment of additional area as part of the Final Plot No.103 of the Town Planning Scheme No.7 are liable to be granted and appropriate directions are to be issued to the respondents to make the necessary corrections in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. 11. The submission, thus, is that the prayers made in the writ petition for allotment of additional area as part of the Final Plot No.103 of the Town Planning Scheme No.7 are liable to be granted and appropriate directions are to be issued to the respondents to make the necessary corrections in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. 12 Noticing the above, we may record that after the order dated 11.07.2024 was passed by this Court directing the Additional Chief Town Planning Officer to decide the representation dated 29.04.2024, it has been brought on record by means of the affidavit dated 09.10.2024 of the Officer on Special Duty and Ex-officio Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat, that the petitioner herein had sold the final plot No. 103 admeasuring 430 sq. mtrs. allotted in lieu of Original plot No.88 (Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki) to one Mittal Chandrakant Popat by a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2018. This fact also forms part of the record as incorporated in the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the officer concerned. 13. In reply to the said affidavit, in rejoinder, it is sought to be submitted by the petitioner herein that the locus of the petitioner to pursue the present litigation cannot be assailed, inasmuch as, the petitioner is still holding title to a major portion of the land in question, which is still in the possession of the petitioner and only a small portion of the plot in question has been transferred in favour of the third party namely Mr. Mittal Chandrakant Popat. 14. However, the fact remains that there is no material on record which would indicate that the petitioner still holds title over the remaining area of Revenue Survey No.42/1 (31/1/paiki new) rather the Revenue entries brought on record at Page No. ‘404’ of the paper book speak otherwise. We may note that a copy of Form No.7 of land in question namely Revenue Survey No.42/1 paiki (old) new Survey No. 31/1/paiki of Village Magdalla, Tahesi Taluka Majura, District Surat, which was part of the Town Planning Scheme No.7 (Vesu- Magdalla) is appended at Page No.’404’ of the paper book, which contains the name of the purchaser namely Mr. Mittal Chandrakant Popat, but does not contain the name of the petitioner herein. Mittal Chandrakant Popat, but does not contain the name of the petitioner herein. We may further record that the Form No. 7 is an entry with regard to the entire area of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki(new), which allegedly had been purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 11.04.2000. 15. The contention of the petitioner in the rejoinder and the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even after the sale of the Final Plot No.103, area 430 sq.mtrs, to a third party during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner is entitled to pursue this litigation, is, thus, not substantiated. At the outset, the present petition can be thrown out on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the material fact of execution of the sale deed dated 21.07.2018 during the pendency of the writ petition and, thus, parting away with his right, title and interest in the final plot No. 103, area 430 sq.mtrs. allotted in the Town Planning Scheme No.7 frustrating his right to agitate the issue. 16. It may not be out of place to mention here that on the presentation of the writ petition, an order dated 16.01.2004 was passed in the following manner: “Notice returnable on 30 th January, 2004. In the meantime, status-quo shall be maintained regarding the land in question. Direct service is permitted.” 17. The interim order passed by this Court categorically directs that status quo regarding the land in question shall be maintained. The said interim order has been extended vide order dated 04.07.2005 till further orders of this Court. The transfer of the Final Plot No. 103, area 430 sq. mtrs. by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition is also violative of the interim order passed by this Court. Moreover, there has been a material concealment by the petitioner of the said relevant fact, which has resulted in passing of the order dated 11.07.2024 by this Court directing the respondents for consideration of the objections dated 29.04.2003 afresh, allegedly filed by the petitioner. 18. Apart from the above, we may record that a categorical assertion has been made by Ms.Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the state-respondents about the communications issued to then owner of the land in question, purchased by the petitioner. 18. Apart from the above, we may record that a categorical assertion has been made by Ms.Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the state-respondents about the communications issued to then owner of the land in question, purchased by the petitioner. It is brought on record that the notice dated 24.04.2003 was issued in the name of the owner, the Predecessor-in-title of the petitioner and the representation dated 29.04.2003, which was directed to be decided by the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court, was in fact, the representation filed by the original owner. The petitioner (purchaser) himself has never represented to the Town Planning Officer after execution of the sale deed dated 11.04.2000 in his name. 19. It is further submitted by Ms.Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the state-respondents that though the acquisition proceedings with respect to an area of 379 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki (old No.42/1) was already completed in the year 2000 with the making of the award, but the Revenue entry with regard to the acquisition was made on 08.04.2003 by preparing a ‘Kami Jasti Patra’ by the DILR , due intimation which was given to the Town Planning Officer by the communication of the same date on 08.04.2003, which finds place at Page No.’122’ of the paper- book. It is submitted that the initial mistake occurred in preparation of the Draft Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government on account of the fact that the acquired area of 379 sq. mtrs. of the original plot was not deducted out of the total area available of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki (New), under the Town Planning Scheme, had, then, been corrected. 20. It is further submitted by Mr. K. M. Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent–corporation (the then SUDA) that for this reason an area of 800 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki (original plot No.88) was shown in the notice dated 24.01.2002 issued by the Town Planning Officer to the original land owner at page No. ‘77’ of the paper-book. It was submitted that the Town Planning Officer after taking charge of the Town Planning Scheme had initially issued notice for the proposed area of 640 sq. mtrs. of Final Plot No. 89 in lieu of Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki (original plot No. 88) (for an area of 800 sq. It was submitted that the Town Planning Officer after taking charge of the Town Planning Scheme had initially issued notice for the proposed area of 640 sq. mtrs. of Final Plot No. 89 in lieu of Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki (original plot No. 88) (for an area of 800 sq. mtrs.), but after the DILR Report dated 08.04.2003, the notice dated 24.04.2003 at Page ‘143’ of the paper-book had been issued to the original owner with the proposal of allotment of Final Plot No. 103, admeasuring 430 sq.mtrs. 21. The order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Town Planning Officer also records the said fact. It may be noted from the order dated 07.10.2024 that on the communication dated 08.04.2003 sent by the DILR along with the necessary documents therewith, to the Town Planning Officer, the land admeasuring 379 sq. mtrs. acquired for ‘Palsana Sachin Makdala Road’ was to be deducted from the total area of the original plot available for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme. It is recorded therein that as per the records available, the Power of attorney holder of the original owners three in number including Manharbhai Govanbhai were informed by the Town Planning Officer vide letter dated 24.04.2003 about the proposal for allotment of an area 430 sq. mtrs. of Final Plot No.103 (original plot No.88) in the Town Planning Scheme. Pursuant thereto, the Power of Attorney Holder of the original owners represented their case before the Town Planning Officer by being personally present on 29.04.2003 when he agitated for consideration of the total area of the original plot being 1240 sq. mtrs., but no evidence was placed on record. 22. Further, it was intimated by the Power of attorney holder that the original owners had already sold the land-in- question to the petitioner herein and they were not the owners of the original plot at the relevant point of time. The Town Planning Officer had thus, taken a final decision under Section 52 (1) of the Town Planning Act on 07.05.2003 and as per the said decision, Survey No.31/1/paiki (new) was given original plot No.88 admeasuring 430 sq. mtrs. and was further allotted Final Plot No. 103 admeasuring 430 sq. mtrs. without any deduction in the proposed Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. mtrs. and was further allotted Final Plot No. 103 admeasuring 430 sq. mtrs. without any deduction in the proposed Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. This decision was duly informed by the Town Planning Officer to the petitioner on 07.05.2003 as per the rule 26(9) of the Rules, 1979. On a query made by the Court, learned Counsel for the respondent-corporation would submit that the decision of the Town Planning Officer dated 07.05.2003 under Section 52 (1) was duly communicated in the prescribed format as required under Section 26(9) of the Rules, 1979. 23. However, without making any representation or any objection to the said proposal, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 16.12.2003, claiming for allotment of a Final Plot in lieu of original Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki agitating that the total area of land held by him and the original owner was 1240 sq. mtrs. The contention of the petitioner based on the total area of Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki being 1240 sq. mtrs having been purchased by him with the sale deed dated 11.4.2000, itself is found misconceived, inasmuch as, after acquisition of the area of 379 sq. mtrs vide publication of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, which was never subjected to challenge by the original owners, the sale deed for the total area of 1240 sq. mtrs. could not have been executed. The petitioner cannot be said to be a valid transferee entitled by a valid transfer of 1240 sq.mtrs. area of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki, with respect to which the claim for allotment of the final plot has been made in the Town Planning Scheme No.7. 24. We may further note that the reasoning given in the order dated 07.10.2024 for the allotment of Final Plot No. 103 area 430 sq. mtrs. in the preliminary Town Planning Scheme by the Town Planning Officer is substantiated even from the stand of the respondent in the affidavit dated 31.01.2005, wherein a categorical statement has been made to the effect that the land acquired under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT being 379 sq. mtrs. cannot be included in the Town Planning Scheme. Moreover, there is no document produced by the petitioner which could even shows that the total area of 1240 sq. mtrs was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner. mtrs. cannot be included in the Town Planning Scheme. Moreover, there is no document produced by the petitioner which could even shows that the total area of 1240 sq. mtrs was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner. Further, this stand taken in paragraph Nos. ‘12’ and ‘13’ of the affidavit filed on 31.01.2005 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to substantiate the land acquisition proceedings with respect to 379 sq. mtrs. of the land in question, could not be successfully disputed by the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply (rejoinder) filed by the petitioner dated 29.01.2015 is not substantiated by any material document on record which would indicate the entry of name of the petitioner in the Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki area 1240 sq. mtrs. In absence of the sale deed executed in the name of the petitioner, it is not possible for us to ascertain the exact area/boundaries of the plot in question which was purchased by the petitioner. Suffice it to note that inspite of categorical stand taken by the state-respondents in the aforesaid affidavit filed by the officers concerned in the year 2005 that the petitioner has not been able to establish his right, title and interest in an area of 1240 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki, no plausible answer could be given by the petitioner. 25. There is one more fact which was pointed out by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the state–respodents that the sale deed dated 21.07.2018 has been executed by the petitioner with respect to the land in question during the pendency of the writ petition in the name of Mr. Mittal Chandrakant Popat and the predecessor-in-interest of the purchaser was engaged in this litigation at the very inception. Attention of the Court is invited to the notice given by Mr. Chandrakant Popat, Advocate dated 23.04.1999 to the Land Acquisition Officer with respect to the land in question. 26. Without giving our much attention to the said fact, suffice it to note that the petitioner herein has not approached this Court with clean hands while raising a challenge to the acquisition proceedings which were concluded much prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that he had purchased an area of 1240 sq. mtrs. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that he had purchased an area of 1240 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.31/1/paiki (new) vide sale deed dated 11.04.2000 is not substantiated by any material on record, not even the sale deed. Moreover, during the pendency of the writ petition, inspite of status quo order with respect to land in question, the petitioner had executed the sale deed dated 21.07.2018 in favour of a third party namely Mr. Mittal Chandrakant Popat and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court during the course of hearing on 11.07.2024, when a detailed order was passed dated 29.04.2003 for consideration of the objections allegedly filed by the petitioner. 27. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the fact of execution of the sale deed dated 29.07.2018 by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition and that the said fact having not been brought to the knowledge of the Court on 11.07.2024 would have no bearing on the case of the petitioner, is not appreciated. 28. There can be no two opinion that a person approaching the Court seeking relief in its favour must come with the clean hands. It was incumbent upon the petitioner at the time of hearing of the matter on 11.07.2024 to disclose correct and complete facts with regard to the transfer of Final Plot No. 103 area 430 sq. mtrs. by him vide sale deed dated 21.07.2018. 29. For the aforesaid facts and the facts noted by us from the order dated 07.10.2024 that the representation dated 29.04.2003 was submitted by the original owner and the Power of attorney of the original owner was heard by the Town Planning Officer on 29.04.2003 before taking the final decision on 07.05.2003 with regard to allotment of final plot No. 103, we do not find any reason to attach any illegality or infirmity to the decision of the Additional Chief Town Planning Officer dated 07.10.2024, which brings the dispute to its logical end. 30. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner herein has been granted liberty for personal hearing in the order dated 11.07.2024 and the stand taken by the petitioner in the written submission before the Additional Chief Town Planning Officer are extracted in the order itself. 30. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner herein has been granted liberty for personal hearing in the order dated 11.07.2024 and the stand taken by the petitioner in the written submission before the Additional Chief Town Planning Officer are extracted in the order itself. A bare reading thereof clearly indicates that the petitioner raised objections only with regard to the acquisition of an area of 379 sq. mtrs. and resultant deduction from the total area of Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki included in the Town Planning Scheme No.7. The contention of the petitioner not to reduce the area of the original plot as a result of acquisition of an area of 379 sq. mtrs., agitated before the Additional Town Planning Officer, has rightly been rejected in the order dated 07.10.2024. The final observations made in the order dated 07.10.2024 are to the effect:- “9 Observations (1) During the pendency of this SCA in Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the petitioner Shri Jagdishbhai Lakhubhai sold final Plot no. 103 of Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 7 (Vesu-Magdalla) admeasuring 430 sq mt to one Mr. Mittal Chandrakant Popat by registered sale deed dated 21.07.2018. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court. Even at the time of hearing on 23.08.2024 pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court dated 11.07.2024, this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner Shri Jagdishbhai Lakhubhai Patel. The present petitioner not being the owner of Original Plot is therefore not the aggrieved person so far as Final Plot no 103 is concerned allotted in lieu of Survey No 31/1/paiki falling within this Town Planning Scheme area. (2) SUDA proposed Draft Town Planning Scheme No 7 (Vesu-Magdalla) in the year 1993. In the Gazette notification dated 01.02.1993 declaring the intention of the TP scheme, the Survey Numbers 14, 41, 42 and 102 were affected by proposed 60 00 mt wide Surat-Dumas Road. Since, the Scheme boundary did not include the 60 00 mt wide Surat - Dumas Road, only the part of the Survey no 14, 41, 42 and 102 were included in the TP Scheme boundary. Accordingily, the draft TP Scheme was prepared, published by SUDA and sanctioned by the State Government. There was no objection to the boundary of the TP Scheme. Accordingily, the draft TP Scheme was prepared, published by SUDA and sanctioned by the State Government. There was no objection to the boundary of the TP Scheme. (3) The Town Planning Officer has considered the area of Original Plot No 88 allotted in lieu of Survey No 31/1/paiki as 430 sq mtrs considering the area of this Survey number included in the present scheme boundary and the acquisition proceedings related to this Survey number. (4) The vesting of land under TP road to the appropriate authority as per amended section 48A of the Act, 1976 was put in the statute after the commencement of acquisition proceedings under the LAQ Act, 1894 for the land under reference. (5) Though the area of the original plot as per the Draft TP scheme sanctioned on dated 25.06.1996, was admeasuring 460 sq mt, the petitioner purchased 1240 sq. mt of Survey No 31/1/paiki by sale deed dated 11.04.2000 which included the land under acquisition for Palsana-Sachin- Magdalla highway of which section 6 notification under LAQ Act-1894 was already published on dated 23.08.1998. (6) With regard to the letter dated 23.12.1998 of SUDA to the original owners of Survey No 42/p mentioning that 123 sq mt area taken by SUDA for the purpose of road development shall be consider for calculating the area of Final Plot to be allotted Lateron, by the letter dated 08.03.2000 SUDA asked the Town Planning Officer to consider 123 sq mt area taken by SUDA for the purpose of road development for calculating the area of Final Plot to be allotted to the original owners of Survey No 42/p. With reference to the letter of SUDA dated 0.8.03.2000, the Town Planning Officer by his letter dated 10.05.2000 informed SUDA that the area mentioned in this letter dated 23.12.1998 for development of island (part of road) is not included in the TP Scheme no 7 (Vesu-Magdalla) and only the area of Survey No 31/1/paiki which falls within the TP Scheme no 7 (Vesu- Magdalla) boundary shall be considered for deciding the area of Original Plot. As per TPO, since the area of 123 sq mt is not included in the TP scheme boundary there is no question of allotting the Final plot in lieu of this 123 sq mt area. As per the record available, there is no further communication on this subject between SUDA and TPO. As per TPO, since the area of 123 sq mt is not included in the TP scheme boundary there is no question of allotting the Final plot in lieu of this 123 sq mt area. As per the record available, there is no further communication on this subject between SUDA and TPO. (7) There is no deduction proposed by the Town Planning Officer in the petitioner's Original Plot area admeasuring 430 sq mt in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme submitted by him. There is no question of allotting Final Plot having area more than the Original Plot area. (8) Considering above, the action of SUDA in making and publication of Draft TP Scheme and action of TPO in finalising the Draft TP scheme are as per the procedure prescribed in the Act, 1976 and Rules, 1979. (9) The preliminary Scheme for the land under reference could not be sanctioned because of the status quo order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.01.2004. Therefore, the allegation of petitioner that the TP Scheme is delayed is not true. (10) There is no violation of mandate of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. (11) The State is not denuded of its power of eminent domain under the general law, namely, LAND ACQUISITION ACT . (12) The preliminary TP Scheme except for the land under reference was sanctioned long back in 2007 and most part of it is already implemented without any hinderance. (13) Once this SCA is decided, the Preliminary TP Scheme No. 7 need to be sanctioned under section 65 of the Act, 1976 for the land under reference accordingly. (12) The preliminary TP Scheme except for the land under reference was sanctioned long back in 2007 and most part of it is already implemented without any hinderance. (13) Once this SCA is decided, the Preliminary TP Scheme No. 7 need to be sanctioned under section 65 of the Act, 1976 for the land under reference accordingly. Order Considering the impugned representation of the original land owners dated 29.04.2003, written submission by the petitioner dated 08.08.2024 and 22.08.2024, original records of the Draft, Preliminary, Final Town Planning Scheme, letter of Surat DILR dated 08.04.2003, record of acquisition, original record pertaining to Revenue Survey No 42/1/Paiki (New Survey No 31/1/Paiki), submission of Chief Town Planner and Surat Municipal Corporation and the submission made by brother of the petitioner Shri Jagdishbhai Lakhubhai during the hearing held on 23.08.2024, it is found that the area of Revenue Survey No 31/1/Paiki (Original Plot No. 88) taken into consideration by the Town Planning Officer as 430 sq mt at the time of submitting the Preliminary TP Scheme to the State Government for sanction under Sec 52(2) and 64 of the Act is just and proper. There is no ground in the petitioner's representation to increase this area of Original Plot from 430 sq mt to 1240 sq mt and who is now not the owner of the Original Plot no 88. By order and in the name of Governer of Gujarat” 31. Considering the above, we do not find any substance in the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is entitled for an additional area in lieu of Revenue Survey No. 31/1/paiki under the Town Planning Scheme No. 7, as against Final Plot No. 103, admeasuring 430 sq. mtrs., which was alloted in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Town Planning Officer on 07.05.2003. 32. All arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner noted in the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court are liable to be rejected. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and has succeeded in getting the said order in his favour for fresh consideration by misleading this Court. 33. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The original record produced by Ms. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and has succeeded in getting the said order in his favour for fresh consideration by misleading this Court. 33. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The original record produced by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP for the state–respondents has been perused and returned after the dictation of the judgment.