( 1 ) THE present petition has been preferred against the notice dated 27th October, 2006 (at Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition) issued by the respondent corporation under Section 212 of the bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations act, 1949 (for short "the Act of 1949"), i whereby the petitioner has been ordered by the respondent Corporation either to vacate the property or it will demolish the same as the construction is coming within "regular line of street", as prescribed under Section 210 (1) (a) of the Act of 1949.

( 2 ) AN important question has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for adjudication by this Court that :-

Whether it is obligatory on the part of the respondent Municipal Corporation of the city of Surat to follow the procedure under Section 210 (1) (b) of the Act of 1949 for prescribing regular line of street when for the first time, the said line is prescribed by the Corporation in consonance with finalised development plan (initially in the year 1986 an in (sic) revised in the year 2004) under the provisions of Gujarat Town planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ?

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent corporation has not followed the procedure prescribed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Act of 1949 and therefore, the resolution prescribing "regular line of street" as well as the notice issued by the respondent Corporation under section 212 of the Act of 1949 (Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition) deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that either the Final Development plan, 1986 or the Draft Revised development Plan, 1996 had this been followed by the respondent Corporation, there would not have been any demolition of the property belonging to the petitioner, especially from Survey No. 49 (Block No. 25 and sub-plot Nos. 4 and 5 thereof ). It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on western side of survey no. 49, there is a road of Surat-Navsari width of which prescribed under Draft revised Development Plan is 60 Mtrs. On further western side of this road, there are final Plot Nos. 23 and 24, and these final plots are having encroachment and, therefore, on further western side of Surat- navsari road, there is an encroachment and therefore, if the width of the road is slightly taken on further western side, there would not have been any demolition in Survey no. 49, especially upon sub-plot Nos. 4 and 5. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the commissioner of Municipal Corporation of the city of Surat and therefore also, the notice at Annexure "a" issued under section 212 of the Act of 1949 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Town Planning envisaged under Revised Development Plan, 1996 is not a Macro level town planning, but it is a micro level town planning, looking to Rule 3 of the Gujarat Town Planning Rules, 1979. He has also relied upon the decision delivered by this Court in the case of girdharlal Ganpatram v. The Ahmedabad municipal Corporation, reported in 1960 glr, 223 and has submitted that even while prescribing regular line of street for the first time, the procedure envisaged as per proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Act of 1949 ought to have been followed by the respondent corporation and it is an admitted fact that such procedure has not been followed and complied with and therefore, the notice at annexure "a" issued under Section 212 of the Act of 1949 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent corporation has mainly submitted that the decision taken by the Commissioner of the municipal Corporation of the city of Surat is under Section 210 (1) (a) of the Act of 1949 and the Commissioner is for the first time, prescribing