( 1 ) SHRI Ramubhai Dahyabhai Rathod-Original plaintiff and petitioner in Civil Revision Application has filed this Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 1. 12. 99 passed by the learned Second Jt. District Judge, Surat. in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 210/99. The learned judge by his judgment has allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of injunction dtd. 5. 10. 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division below Ex. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 310/96 filed by the original plaintiff-petitioner herein.

( 2 ) IT may be noted that this matter was placed for admission before me. However, looking to the importance of the matter and urgency of the matter, I have heard the matter at the admission stage for final disposal of the matter and therefore I have allowed the learned counsel to address me on all questions of law and facts at length and I have heard the learned counsel, for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent at length and therefore I am disposing of this civil revision application at admission stage finally with detailed reasons.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to this Revision Application are as under :-

( 4 ) IN this case the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 310/96 in the Court of Civil Judge through his power of attorney Ramubhai Dahyabhai Rathod on 19th April, 1996 against Surat Municipal Corporation and others for a declaration and permanent injunction and had prayed that the land in dispute which is situated in Survey No. 35 in Umarwada of Choryasi taluka in possession and occupation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had alleged in the suit that he has been tilling the land as a tenant for years, however, the defendant is trying to take away possession of the plaintiff forcibly without following any process of law, so to restrain the defendants from doing so, and to declare that the plaintiff has tenancy rights over the land in dispute and is in possession and he has prayed for a declaration and permanent injunction as aforesaid.

( 5 ) IN support of that contention the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had filed an application on 16. 10. 95 before Additional Mamlatdar of Umarvada, Choriyasi taluka for entering his name as a tenant in Tenancy Case No. 83/95. The plaintiff has also filed an application on 4. 1. 1996 before the Talati, Umarvada Mamlatdar, Taluka Choryasi for entering his name in 7 X 12 record and panchnama dtd. 8. 1. 1996 made in his favour. The said report was produced by the plaintiff at Ex. 3/8. It was also alleged by the plaintiff in the suit that the plaintiff has also filed an application dtd. 19. 4. 1996 for appointment of a Court Commissioner and commissioner has also made a report dated19. 4. 1996 that there was a hut on the land in question.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 Surat Municipal Corporation filed its written statement at Ex. 13 and stated that as regards suit land on 10. 5. 68 the State Government had prepared a Draft Town Planning Scheme and the same was notified and sanctioned. The State Government sanctioned a preliminary Town Planning Scheme which came into force on 4. 8. 68. After the preliminary scheme was sanctioned and published in official gazette on 12. 1. 1987, the State Government has sanctioned the Final Town Planning Scheme No. 8 and published in the Official Gazette and said scheme came into effect on 17. 2. 87. It was also stated [ in the written statement that scheme was published in the Newspapers as well as in the Gazette and objection were invited from the owner of the land and after considering the said objections the Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government and it was also published. The Town Planning Officer appointed by the State Government also carried out his duties and after considering his report the State Government has prepared the final scheme. During all this period the plaintiff has never objected to the