JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 893 of 2026:- Mr. Anuj K Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the the respondent – Corporation has no objection to the delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The office shall allot the regular number to the appeal. ORDER IN APPEAL:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the challenge to the order dated 13.05.2025 passed under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (“the Act, 1976”) r/w Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, made thereunder, has been turned down. While dismissing the writ petition, the writ Court has issued directions that two months’ time may be provided to the petitioners to vacate their respective premises and the petitioners would be liable to give peaceful and vacant possession of their respective premises to the respondent –Corporation. 2. Challenging this order, it was sought to be submitted by Mr. Ekrama H. Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants – original petitioners that the original petitioners are seeking to assert their right, title and interest in the land in question which was in their ownership. The documents such as tax-bill, electricity bills and agreement to sell including others demonstrating the ownership and occupation of the petitioners were filed before the officer of the Corporation, under the directions issued by this Court in the previous petition namely Special Civil Application No. 1178 of 2025. However, all the relevant documents have been conveniently ignored by the officer concerned while passing the order dated 13.05.2025. 3. The contention is that, even otherwise, the officer concerned has left it open for the petitioners to agitate their grievances before the Town Planning Officer, inasmuch as, the Town Planning Scheme as on date is at the stage of the sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme. 3. The contention is that, even otherwise, the officer concerned has left it open for the petitioners to agitate their grievances before the Town Planning Officer, inasmuch as, the Town Planning Scheme as on date is at the stage of the sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme. The contention, thus, is that the learned Single Judge has erred in closing the doors for the petitioners by observing in the order impugned that the petitioners being occupiers of the subject land do not have any ownership rights and they cannot be considered for allotment of final plots against the original plots. 4. The submission is that the directions issued in the judgment impugned, asking the petitioners to vacate the plots in question within a period of two months from the order, is causing serious prejudice to the petitioners as they have been deprived of agitating their right, title and interest in the lands in question before the Town Planning Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1976. 5. The contention is that the Draft Town Planning Scheme is not a final declaration of the scheme under the Town Planning Act, rather after sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme by the State Government, the Town Planning Officer is appointed who is required to look into all objections by any person claiming right, title and interest in the property/land subject matter of scheme. The contention, thus, is that liberty be given to the petitioners to agitate their grievances before the Town Planning Officer and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned be modified, accordingly. 6. Having considered all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, pertinent is to record that the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, has been filed jointly by 17 persons claiming right, title and interest in the lands in question namely Revenue Survey No. 3, 3/1+2 paiki 1, 3/1 +2 paiki 2, original plot no. 136, Final Plot No. 136 and Revenue Survey No. 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, original plot no. 137, final plot no. 137 admeasuring total about 10,849 sq. mtrs. (after allocation of the final plot) is situated at Moje Maktampura. The petitioners have made vague averments in paragraph no. ‘6.1’ of the writ petition that they are the owners and occupiers of the lands in question. 137, final plot no. 137 admeasuring total about 10,849 sq. mtrs. (after allocation of the final plot) is situated at Moje Maktampura. The petitioners have made vague averments in paragraph no. ‘6.1’ of the writ petition that they are the owners and occupiers of the lands in question. Apart from the tax bills, electricity bills and agreement to sell, no other documents could be filed to substantiate their ownership or any legal right or interest over the land in question. 7. The order impugned dated 13.05.2025 passed by the officer of the Corporation categorically records that the petitioners have failed to produce any document of valid transfer of right, title and interest in their favour by the original owners. The learned Single Judge also records that the final plots in lieu of the original plots have already been allotted to the original owners. 8. We may also note that the original owners of the lands in question, in whose favour the final plot nos. 136 and 137 have been allotted under the Draft Town Planning Scheme, have not been impleaded in the writ petition. The claim made by the petitioners for allotment of the final plots or relocation or giving them an alternative lands/plots, cannot be considered in absence of the original owners in the present set of proceedings. There is no denial in the writ petition about the observation made in the order impugned with regard to allotment of the final plots in favour of the original owners. 9. The grounds taken to challenge the order impugned dated 13.05.2025 passed by the officer of the Corporation, agitated in the writ petition, are that the existing use or occupation rights of the property owner are rooted in the principles of fairness and natural justice, which safeguards long-standing and lawful property use from arbitrary interference. The property has been in continuous and authorized use, establishing vested rights that cannot be disregarded without compelling public interest. Several petitioners are long-term residents, having occupied their respective residential dwelling units at the site prior to 01.04.2010 and, as such, they fall squarely within the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Regulations for Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010, which constitute the prevailing policy framework of the State Government and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for the rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons. 10. 10. It is contended by the petitioners in the writ petition as a ground to challenge the order impugned dated 13.05.2025, that the petitioners are eligible for the benefits of rehabilitation. The respondent authorities, however, have failed to consider their entitlement to alternative accommodations. 11. The further contentions therein are about violation of principles of natural justice and the denial of equity; the right to property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 12. From the above reading of the writ petition, it is, evident that the petitioners have made contradictory statements before the writ Court about their rights, title or interest in the lands in question. On one hand, they claim ownership over the lands in question and on the contrary, the assertions are that the petitioners are entitled for rehabilitation under the Regulations for Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010. 13. The contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing in paragraph no. ‘8’ that the petitioners though claimed to be occupier of the subject land but they do not have any ownership rights, are not worthy of acceptance. 14. No error can be attached to the judgment impugned, which is based on an exhaustive consideration of claims of the petitioners as also the findings returned in the order passed by the competent officer of the Municipal Corporation, subject matter of challenge before the writ Court. 15. The present is a case of preparation of the Town Planning Scheme under the Act, 1976. The Draft Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Municipal Corporation was notified under Section 41 of the Act, 1976 and has been sanctioned by the State Government under Section 48 (2) of the Act, 1976 vide notification dated 09.06.2015. As a result of the sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme, the same became part of the Act by virtue of Section 48A of the Act, 1976, which provides that with the sanction by the State Government under Section 48 (2) of the Act, 1976, all lands required by the appropriate authority (the Corporation herein) for the purposes specified in the clauses (c), (f), (g) and (h) of Section 40 (3), shall vest absolutely in the appropriate authority free from all encumbrances. However, the effect of Sections 48 (2) and 48A is that vesting under Section 48A (1) shall not affect any right of the owner of the land. The eviction proceedings from a piece of land or plot vested with the Corporation, reserved for public purpose under the Draft Scheme sanctioned by the State Government, is guided by Section 68 of the Act, 1976. 16. In the first round of litigation, the petitioners challenged the orders dated 22.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 passed under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Act, 1976 by the officer of the Corporation, for eviction of the petitioners. The sole ground of the challenge before the writ Court therein was that the orders impugned were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. On the consensus of the learned advocate appearing for the Corporation, recorded therein while quashing the aforesaid orders, the matter was relegated for providing the fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. 17. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 13.05.2025 wherein it is recorded that they have failed to establish their claims on merits. We may also note that out of seventeen (17) petitioners before the writ Court, only three (3) are in appeal before us. 18. Having noted the above facts, it is evident that the appellants have no claim to continue to occupy the piece of land for which they have failed to establish their rights, title or interest, so to seek accommodation under the Town Planning Scheme framed under the Act, 1976. The lands in question having been vested with the Corporation by virtue of Section 48A of the Act, 1976 and the final plot nos. 136 and 137 having been allotted to the original owners of the lands, who are not before us, it is evident that the appellants have left with no right to raise any challenge to the Draft Town Planning Scheme or any determination made under the Town Planning Scheme, with regard to any alternate plot in lieu of the lands in question which are subject matter of reconstitution under the Town Planning Scheme. 19. The challenge to the eviction order dated 13.05.2025 passed against the appellants herein, after affording them due opportunity of hearing, therefore, cannot be sustained. 19. The challenge to the eviction order dated 13.05.2025 passed against the appellants herein, after affording them due opportunity of hearing, therefore, cannot be sustained. The appellants are required to obey the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. 20. However, it is provided that after eviction from the plots in question, it would be open for the appellants herein to move individual applications to seek benefits under the Regulations for Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010, before the competent authority, who would be then required to consider the claim of the appellants for rehabilitation under the Rehabilitation of the provisions of Slums Act, 2020, if the same is applicable in the case of the appellants. We may clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the claim of the appellants to seek any such consideration and the concerned authority is required to take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law. 21. Subject to the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected civil application also stands disposed of.