( 1 ) THE challenge in this Special Civil Application is the Town planning Scheme framed pertaining to the City of Surat for the area Karanj, Scheme no. III, Survey No. 7, Plot No. 4.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is a registered Co-operative Housing Society having more than 190 members, who are the plot-holders of the society. The say of the petitionersociety is that it purchased the land bearing survey No. 7 of village Karanj, for the purpose of construction of residential houses. The original owner of the land executed Satakhat (Agreement to sale) in favour of the Co-operative Housing Society on 25-6-1975, and delivered the possession of the said land. As the said piece of land was within the territorial jurisdiction of Karanj Panchayat, permission was sought from the said Panchayat before raising the construction. Now the survey No. 7 which was given the original plot number as plot No. 4, on reconstitution, has been marked as Plot No. 5 and 8, has been reserved for garden and the other part of the piece of land marked as Plot No. 54, has been reserved for school under the Town Planning Scheme. Stating the facts with respect to the Town Planning scheme, it is stated that after coming into force of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976, Surat Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as suda) framed a scheme, in the year 1980 for the development of the areas which were originally under the Panchayats.

( 3 ) IN 1984, objections came to be invited vide Annexure d. However, no objections were submitted by the petitioner as no notice was served on the petitioner and in fact the Society had no knowledge of this. In the year 1988, the respondentauthority invited objections vide Annexure e dated 17-9-1988. The petitionersociety for the first time, came to know about the fact that the proposed development scheme affects the interest of the society and therefore, in reply to the advertisement, written objection were filed. The petitioner-society took the objection that the society was not intimated personally either with respect to the proposed Draft Plan or scheme, that the proposed Plan was not published along with the advertisement. Request was made by the petitioner to supply copy of the proposed Plan or to permit them to take copy of the proposed Plan and the Scheme. The respondent, vide communication dated 18-11-1988, replied to the petitioner-society that the plans which they prepare are tentative and are subject to change, and therefore, copy of the same cannot be given. The petitioners were not even permitted to inspect the draft Plan and the Scheme and appear before the respondent-authority through technical expert. It was expressed that it was not possible for the petitioner-society to submit effective objection as neither the copies of the Draft Plan and/or the scheme was supplied, nor were they allowed to inspect or even to appear through technical expert. The relevant communications have been placed on record by the petitioner. It is also stated that if the Scheme is given effect to, this will close down a 30 ft. vide road passing through the society by joining two survey numbers which are acquired by the respondent-authority. If the said road is closed down, the members of the petitioner-society will be put to great difficulty. It is alleged that in the original scheme, reservation in survey No. 24 and 25 was proposed. But subsequently, it was changed to survey No. 7 at the behest of some influential political leaders.

( 4 ) MR. Dhirajlal I. Darji, Deputy Engineer (East Zone) in the Municipal corporation, Surat has filed affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3. The respondent has denied that the petitioner is a registered society and so as the membership of the petitioner-society has also been denied. With respect to the Agreement to sale, it is stated that an agreement was entered into with Chief Promoter of the society and not with the society and that is no agreement in the eye of law. Further, by agree