( 1 ) RULE. Mr. S. J. Dave, learned A. G. P. waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1, Mr. A. K. Clerk waives service on behalf of respondent no. 2 and respondent nos. 3 to 7 need not be served as they are co-owners with the petitioners and are supporting the petitioners.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the respective parties. On a joint request of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing today.

( 3 ) SHORT controversy in the present petition is as to whether the respondent-Corporation can demand vacant possession and removal of super structures of the land in question by issuing a notice under section 68 read with rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

( 4 ) IT is a common ground that the relevant town planning scheme has been sanctioned by the government, that the petitioners have been allotted the final plot no. 14 under the scheme, and that the area of 95. 94 meters from the said final plot has been reserved for roadline. It is pertinent to note and to emphasize at this stage that this is mere reservation for the future widening of the road as contemplated in the scheme. The affidavit on behalf of the