JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The case of the petitioner is that the society is situated on original plot no. 29 and original plot no. 30 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (Vejalpur) and the preliminary scheme was sanctioned on 14.08.2002. The petitioner society against original plot no. 29 and original plot no. 30 has been allotted final plot no. 30/1 and 30/2. Based on the redistribution statement, the case of the petitioner is that the original plot no. 29 on survey no. 225 was 8902 sq. mtrs and the final plot 29 admeasuring 6855 sq. mtrs was yet not allotted and therefore the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 2919 of 2009 before the High Court where the High Court had directed the authority to hand over possession within three months. Since the respondent authority has failed to implement the scheme and allot 6855 sq. mtrs, a subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No. 6818 of 2002 has been filed and is pending.

2.2 The case of the petitioner is that notices have been issued under the Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976 on 27.12.2002, 17.02.2009 and subsequently on 17.12.2019, based on letters dated 10.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 by which the society has been asked to hand over possession of part of original plot no. 29 which is included in Final Plot No. 30/1 without handing over possession of Final Plot No. 29 which is part of original plot no. 29.

2.3 The case of the petitioner society is that though these notices were pertaining to Original Plot No. 29 while passing the impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to hand over possession of Original Plot No. 30 also while dealing with only Original Plot No. 29.

2.4 No opportunity of hearing has been provided qua Original Plot No. 30 and if some opportunity would have been so provided the petitioner would have drawn attention to the various litigations pending between the petitioner and the owners of Original Plot No. 30. No notices under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Act were given for hearing to the petitioner for Original Plot No. 30. Hence the decision dated 13.07.2021 directing that possession of Original Plot No. 30 be handed over is only after considering the proceedings considering the ownership and possession of Original Plot No. 29 and not Original Plot No. 30.

3. Heard Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State respondents, Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Venu Nanavaty, learned advocate for respondent no. 4.

4. Mr.Kaushal Pandya learned advocate for the petitioner would make the following submissions:

(A) Mr.Pandya would submit that the provisions of Section 67, 68 and 69 of the Town Planning Act envisages examination of the land at site with the plan and then they will demarcate the final plots which are to be carved out from the Original Plots. On the basis of the holding of the original plots, final plots will be demarcated and allotted. The exercise is thereafter undertaken to give up original plots in exchange in final plots.

(B) He would further submit that under Section 68 of the Town Planning Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules, summary eviction procedure would start after demarcating the plots. Notices will be issued under such provision. The notice under Section 68 of the Town Planning Act is centered around giving notices to the original plot holders as the notice is envisaged for taking over possession from owners or occupiers of original plot holders. He would therefore submit that since possession has to be taken over of the original plot, owners or occupiers need to be heard and their objections are to be con