JUDGMENT :

1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have mainly prayed to quash and set aside order dated 17.6.2021 passed by respondent no.2 at Annexure to the petition and declare the same as null and void and also prayed to remand the matter.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners of property bearing City Survey No.893, 894, 895 and 896/A/1 situated at Shahpur Ward-1 of Taluka City, District Ahmedabad. It is stated that out of total land of 206.06 sq.mtrs. of Survey No.896/A/1, the petitioners sold land admeasuring 32.60 sq.mtrs. in favour of respondent nos.5 to 7 in 1994 and possession was handed over to them. It is the case of the petitioners that later on respondent nos.5 to 7 sold said land to respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent nos.3 and 4 want to construct flat in the said land and for that they are trying the grab land of the road, which is in the property of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed Civil Suit No.1608 of 2019 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against respondent no.3 and 4. The petitioners state that during the pendency of said suit, respondent nos.3 and 4 approached city Survey Superintendent vide application dated 26.8.2020 for measurement of the property. Said application was forwarded to respondent no.2 for further action and the petitioners have filed their reply. However, due to second wave of Covid-19 the matter could not proceed further. Thereafter, respondent no.2 fixed hearing of the application on 16.6.2021 vide notice dated 3.6.2021. The petitioners state that this notice was received by them on 18.6.2021 and when the petitioners approached respondent no.2, they were informed that order is passed on 17.6.2021. It is the case of the petitioners that notice dated 3.6.2021 was posted by office of respondent no.2 on 16.6.2021 and it was received by the petitioners on 18.6.2021. Therefore, the petitioners have filed present petition with aforesaid prayer.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Harshadrai Dave for the petitioners, learned AGP, Mr.Nikunj Kanara for the State and learned advocate Mr.Dastoor for private respondents.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the petitioners has submitted that the matter needs to be remanded back to the concerned authority as no proper opportunity of being heard is afforded to the petitioners. He has submitted that the authority has not entered into the merits, as it can be gathered from the documentary evidence that when the matter was posted for hearing, notice thereof was issued very late and it was received by the petitioners after passing of the impugned order. He has referred to the documentary evidence at page 53 of the petition to substantiate his submission that the notice was received late and no proper opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners and, therefore, solely on this ground the matter may be remanded back to the concerned authority.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dastoor for the private respondents has submitted that the authority has provided ample opportunity to the petitioners herein and even as per the suit filed by the petitioners, property in question belongs to the private respondents and, therefore, the impugned order is in no way affecting the rights of the present petitioners. While reading the impugned order, Mr.Dastoor has submitted that as reflected in the order the arguments of both the sides were heard earlier and thereafter the matter was kept for report from the authority and notice was also issued to the petitioners to remain present but they did not remain present before the authority. He has submitted that since the opportunity has been given to the petitioners and there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners, this Court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Mr.Dastoor, learned advocate for the private respondents has submitted that he relies upon one judgment in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthy reported in (2005) 6 SCC 321 for the proposition that