ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent-corporation and Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms.Ankeeta Rajput, for the respondent-state. 2. From a perusal of the record, it is pertinent to note that the original petitioner-Appellant herein had earlier approached this Court in Special Civil Application No.900 of 2005 challenging the determination made under the proposed Preliminary Town Planning Scheme with regard to four plots namely Revenue Survey Nos.370, 372, 374 and 388, belonging to the petitioner-trust. A bare reading of the judgment and order dated 04.05.2006 indicates that while hearing of the writ petition, learned advocate appearing for petitioner therein sought permission of the Court to withdraw the same with the request that the objections already submitted before the Town Planning Officer may be considered by the State Government before sanctioning the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. This Court having noticed that the proposed Preliminary Scheme was pending consideration before the State Government, had disposed of the writ petition with the following observations and directions :- “2. It goes without saying that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, before sanctioning the Preliminary Scheme, the State Government is bound to consider the objections and suggestions forwarded by the Town Planning Officer along with the proposed Preliminary Scheme. However, still it will be open for the petitioner to submit an additional representation raising objections before the State Government and if such representation is made within a period of 10 days from today, the State Government is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits without being influenced in any way by the present proceedings before sanctioning the Preliminary Scheme. 3. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. D.S.Permitted.” 3. It seems that after disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.05.2006 before the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar, wherein various objections have been raised showing error in the proposed Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Town Planning Officer, submitted to the State Government for its sanction. 4. D.S.Permitted.” 3. It seems that after disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.05.2006 before the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar, wherein various objections have been raised showing error in the proposed Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Town Planning Officer, submitted to the State Government for its sanction. 4. The writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No.23755 of 2006, out of which the present Appeal has arisen, was, thereafter, filed with the following reliefs :- “(A) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the reservation for commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No. 388 in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 22 (Akota- Tandalja) sanctioned by Respondent No.1 being discriminatory, illegal, mala-fide and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. (B) In the alternate this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider this petition as representation of the petitioner for variation in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.22 (Akota-Tandalja) by lifting the reservation for the commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No.388 and make the said land available to the petitioner for the fulfillment of its objects. (C) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 to produce the inquiry report in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner against Dr. Asutosh Pandya, the concerned TPO. (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble court may be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from actually implementing the reservation for the commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No.388 of Tandalja in the Preliminary TP Scheme No.22 Vadodara (Akota-Tandalja).” 5. We may note the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition, out of which the present appeal has arisen. The contention in paragraph No.4.1 of the writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.370, 372, 374 and part of Revenue Survey No.388 situated at Village Tandalja. We may note the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition, out of which the present appeal has arisen. The contention in paragraph No.4.1 of the writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.370, 372, 374 and part of Revenue Survey No.388 situated at Village Tandalja. Survey No. 370 is an open land, Survey No.372 is constructed area where temple premises, a Dharmshala and a school are situated; Survey No. 374 is a natural lake and Survey No.388 is an open piece of land. 6. It is pertinent to note that in Paragraph No.4.1 of the writ petition, the petitioner has also stated that the total area of Revenue Survey No.388 is 36,017 sq. mtrs. and that out of the said area, 25,100 sq. mtrs. of land was sold by registered sale deeds to various persons prior to the introduction of the Town Planning Scheme. The contention is that over an area of 25,100 sq.mtrs. (which was sold out of Revenue Survey No.388), one Shivashray Society Ltd. had raised construction. The petitioner had made a declaration about the said sale and sought reduction of the said area from the total holding of the petitioner-trust in the Town Planning Scheme. 7. It is further contended in Paragraph No.4.5 of the writ petition that while preparing the Draft Town Planning Scheme, the Town Planning Officer included the area of 25,100 sq. mtrs of Revenue Survey No.388 in the landholding of the petitioner, which was otherwise sold to other persons vide registered sale deeds, and, thus, illegally treated the entire area of 36,017 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No. 388 as landholding of the petitioner, instead of the actual holding of the petitioner-trust in Revenue Survey No. 388 being only 10,917 sq. mtrs. The petitioner has further made a reference to the judgment and order dated 04.12.2006 passed by this Court, and the representation dated 08.05.2006 in the writ petition and in Paragraph No.4.7, it is stated that the State Government, by notification dated 07.07.2006 had sanctioned the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, without taking into consideration the representation dated 08.05.2006 of the petitioner. 8. 8. It is further sought to be stated in the same paragraph No. 4.7 of the writ petition that as per the guidelines issued by the Town Planning Officer dated 12.04.2004 and the provisions of the Town Planning Act, lakes, canals, natural streams etc. are not required to be disturbed while preparing the Town Planning Scheme. Similarly, from the lands belonging to a religious trust, School, University etc., no deduction should be made, as far as possible. It is further stated in the said paragraph that if deduction of the land is inevitable, the said deduction should not exceed 10% and can be made only for the purposes of road line. It was, thus, contended that in the present case, in violation of the guidelines framed under the scheme of the Act and Rules, the Respondents have placed reservation for commercial purposes on the land in Survey No.308, belonging to the petitioner. It is further contended in Paragraph No.4.7 that :- “The petitioner has no objection for the land taken away from it for the purpose of laying out 24 mtrs. wide Vasna-Bhayli Road. Similarly, the petitioner has no objection in respect of another 24 mtrs. wide T.P. Road laid out on the East of Survey No.374 and on the West of Shivashraya Society. It would not be out of place to mention that the land bearing Survey No.374 is a lake area where no development is permissible. On the land bearing Survey No.372, Temple Premises and Dharmashala, School, etc., are situated and is, thus, a constructed area where also, no further development is possible. The petitioner trust is, therefore, left with the land bearing Revenue Survey No.370 and part of land bearing Revenue Survey No.388. These lands are hardly sufficient for the fulfillment of the objects of the petitioner. Despite this, with a malafide intention and in a discriminatory manner, the Town Planning Officer has proposed reservation for the commercial purpose in the land bearing Revenue Survey No.388. The reservation for commercial purpose in the vicinity of religious institution is inherently incongruous. Further substantial land of the petitioner has gone in 24 mtrs. wide Vasna-Bhayli Road and another 24 mtrs. wide T.P. Road situated on the East of Survey No.374 on the West of Shivashraya Society. The reservation for commercial purpose in the vicinity of religious institution is inherently incongruous. Further substantial land of the petitioner has gone in 24 mtrs. wide Vasna-Bhayli Road and another 24 mtrs. wide T.P. Road situated on the East of Survey No.374 on the West of Shivashraya Society. The State Government has not applied its mind to these facts and the objections raised by the petitioner against reservation even though, a specific direction was given by this Hon'ble Court.” 9. Having noted the above stand of the petitioner in the writ petition itself, it is evident that the only dispute about Revenue Survey No. 388 raised by the petitioner before the writ Court was about the reservation for commercial purposes or the deduction of an area of 1931 sq. mtrs. from the said land holding of the petitioner-trust. It is asserted in the Writ petition that such reservation in the vicinity of a religious institution is inherently incongruous. Moreover, substantial land of the petitioner has already been consumed in the 24 mtrs. wide Vasna-Bhayli Road and 24 mtrs. wide T. P. Road situated to the east of Survey No.374 and on the west side of the plot belonging to Shivashray Society. The whole claim of the petitioner to assail the reservation of 1931 sq.mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.388 was on the ground that the State Government has not applied its mind to the above noted facts agitated in the objections raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 08.05.2006. 10. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition for various reasons given in the order impugned. However, in the present Appeal, two orders dated 14.06.2021 and 23.11.2021 have been passed by this Court, wherein the matter was relegated to the State Government for consideration of the dispute pertaining to the Survey No. 300 admeasuring 1931 sq. mtrs. reserved for commercial purposes, under the proposal submitted by the Municipal Corporation. However, in the present Appeal, two orders dated 14.06.2021 and 23.11.2021 have been passed by this Court, wherein the matter was relegated to the State Government for consideration of the dispute pertaining to the Survey No. 300 admeasuring 1931 sq. mtrs. reserved for commercial purposes, under the proposal submitted by the Municipal Corporation. This Court, taking note of the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the alleged settlement/understanding arrived at between the trust and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation sometime in the year 1993-94, and the submissions of the Learned Advocate made, at the Bar, that the land in question was needed as a playground for the school being run by the trust, had relegated the matter for consideration by the State Government while noticing Section 70 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Development Act, 1976, recording that if a scheme is found to be defective on account of any error, irregularity or infirmity, the same can be varied and such power of variation can be exercised upon the application of an appropriate authority, namely the Area Development Authority. It was noted by this Court that Section 70 is a provision providing an inbuilt remedy to recognize a crystallized claim or right of a landholder that has been disregarded in the scheme, even if the scheme is made final and even if it is treated as part of the Act having been come into force. 11. Placing these two orders passed by this Court in the present appeal, it was vehemently submitted by Mr.Asim Pandya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there was no option before the Corporation but to dereserve the final plot carved out of Revenue Survey no.388, area 1931 sq. mtrs., which had been reserved for commercial purposes under the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. Much emphasis has been laid to the observations in Paragraph Nos. ‘12’ to ‘16’ of the order dated 23.11.2021 as well as observations in the order dated 14.06.2021 to assert that the State Government has not considered the claim of the petitioner in the spirit of the directions contained therein. 12. Much emphasis has been laid to the observations in Paragraph Nos. ‘12’ to ‘16’ of the order dated 23.11.2021 as well as observations in the order dated 14.06.2021 to assert that the State Government has not considered the claim of the petitioner in the spirit of the directions contained therein. 12. Dealing with the above submissions, taking note of the representation made by the petitioner dated 08.05.2006, in light of the decision of this Court in the judgment and order dated 04.12.2006, and the averments made in the writ petition itself as noted hereinbefore, and reading of the orders dated 14.06.2021 and 23.11.2021 of this Court in the present appeal, we are afraid to accept the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the Municipal Corporation had no option but to dereserve the final plot of an area of 1931 sq. mtrs. carved out of Revenue Survey no. 388 and hand over the same to the petitioner-trust which has kept reserved for commercial purpose and now for other social purposes in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. We further find that though in the writ petition dispute was raised with respect to the inclusion of 25,100 sq. mtrs. of the area of Revenue Survey no. 388, which had been sold by the petitioner-trust to different persons prior to the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, but there is no clear averments in the writ petition. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that from the material brought on record, it seems that only an area of 10,329 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey no. 388 was included as the land holding of the petitioner- trust in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government on 07.07.2006. 13. The main crux of the submission before the writ court was that the representation dated 08.05.2006 submitted by the petitioner with respect to the Revenue Survey no. 388, had not been adjudicated at the ends of the State Governemnt. 14. The submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/appellant is that the dispute pertaining to the claim of the petitioner about non-deduction/dereservation of the Revenue Survey no. 388, area 1931 sq. mtrs. from the total landholding of the petitioner-trust comprising of four plots namely Revenue survey Nos. 14. The submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/appellant is that the dispute pertaining to the claim of the petitioner about non-deduction/dereservation of the Revenue Survey no. 388, area 1931 sq. mtrs. from the total landholding of the petitioner-trust comprising of four plots namely Revenue survey Nos. 370, 372, 374 and part of 388, requires re-consideration at the ends of the State Government , more so, in view of the directions contained in the order dated 14.06.2021 and 23.11.2021 passed by this Court in the present Appeal. 15. Further, it may also be noted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the claim of dereservation of 1931 sq. mtrs. of Revenue survey no. 388 is based on an alleged settlement arrived in a Civil Suit namely Regular Civil Suit No.1702 of 1992 filed against the Corporation and an alleged resolution of the Standing Committee of the Corporation dated 15.09.1999. It is submitted by Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the Corporation that the resolution dated 15.09.1999 was in an altogether different context. We may simply note that no statement about the resolution dated 15.09.1999 has been made in the representation dated 08.05.2006. 16. It is the case of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation that although the Town Planning Officer had clubbed an area of 25,100 sq. mtrs. of the Revenue Survey No.388 in the proposed Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, which was already sold by the petitioner-trust to a society named Shivashray Society, but at the time of sanction the said area had been deducted by the State Government. The contention of the learned Counsel of the Corporation is that the sanctioned Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, notified by the State Governemnt on 07.07.2006, does not include the said area of 25,000/- sq.mtrs. in the Peliminary Town Planning Scheme and hence no dispute can be raised by the petitioner/appellant herein in that regard. 17. In order to substantiate this submission, attention of the Court is invited to Page No.’518’ of the paper-book, the statement in the affidavit dated 12.06.2024 of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. in the Peliminary Town Planning Scheme and hence no dispute can be raised by the petitioner/appellant herein in that regard. 17. In order to substantiate this submission, attention of the Court is invited to Page No.’518’ of the paper-book, the statement in the affidavit dated 12.06.2024 of the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. By placing on the reliance the table extracted at Page No.’518’ containing description of plots included in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State-respondent and the learned Advocate for the Corporation that the Revenue survey No.388 purchased by the aforesaid society was considered as a separate plot namely Revenue survey No.388/paiki, which was given original plot No.3/1 in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme and in lieu whereof Final Plot No.6, area 23,524 sq.mtrs. after a deduction of 3.44% from the said land, was allotted to the land owner. 18. It is pertinent to note that in the representation dated 08.05.2006, the statement is that an area of 10, 917 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.388 remained with the petitioner-trust after the sale of 25,100 sq. mtrs. to the aforesaid society. 19. The contention of the respondents thus, is that there is no infirmity in the Town Planning Scheme with regard to the deduction of 25,100 sq. mtrs. of Revenue Survey No.388 sold to the society, which though was initially included by the Town Planning Officer in the proposed Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, but the mistake was rectified at the stage of the sanction of scheme by State Government on 07.07.2006. 20. We, further, find that there is no order of the State Government of disposal of the representation dated 08.05.2006 submitted by the petitioner in light of the judgment and order dated 04.05.2006 in the Special Civil Application 900 of 2005. 21. It is though submitted by the learned Counsels for the respondents that whatever issues were raised in the representation dated 08.05.2006 were mostly dealt with at the time of sanctioning of the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme on 07.07.2006, but in view of the disputed questions of fact which are agitated by the rival parties, it may not be possible for us to deliberate on them. 22. 22. Thus, in order to bring the dispute to its logical end, we require that a fresh consideration shall be given to the representation of the petitioner / appellant dated 08.05.2006 after providing personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner / appellant and also to the representative of the Corporation. The Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to file its reply/objection to the contents of the representation dated 08.05.2006 within a period of three weeks from today before the Additional Chief Town Planner, the Officer on Special Duty and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, Urban Development & Urban Housing Department. On receipt of the copy of this order along with the reply/objection of the Corporation, a notice be sent to the petitioner intimating the date fixed for personal hearing. 23. A reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, dealing with all grievances raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 08.05.2006 and the submissions, if any made during the course of personal hearing, shall be passed after considering the reply of the Corporation preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It goes without saying that the Chief Town Planner shall summon the entire records of the Town Planning Scheme, namely, the Draft Town Planning Scheme, Proposed and Sanctioned Preliminary Town Planning Scheme, and peruse the same carefully before forming his opinion on the issues raised by the parties. 24. It is further clarified that an independent consideration shall be given to the claims made by the petitioner without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in any of the orders whether in the writ petition or in the present appeal, including this order. The order passed by the Chief Town Planner shall be brought on record along with an affidavit of a Gazetted officer from the office of the Town Planning Department. 25. It is made clear that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent. Put up this matter on 12.11.2025.