JUDGMENT :

Vineet Kothari, J.

1. This intra-Court Appeal arises out of order dated 05.07.2017 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the Special Civil Application No.12798 of 2016 filed by the present five appellants - Harishbhai Tapubhai Shekhava, Parshottambhai mangabhai Thakore, Dilipbhai Parshottambhai Thakor, Bhupendrabhai Parshottambhai Thakor and Vihaji Mangaji Thakor.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal in a nutshell are as under.

2.1 The Appellants - Petitioners claimed their alleged rights over the land in question, situated at Vejalpur-2, on the basis of an Agreement to Sell executed by Vendor, who was not a party before the learned Single Judge, in their favour in the year 1986, for which the Appellants – Petitioners claimed that they have filed a Civil Suit for specific performance after 30 years in 2016 namely, Civil Suit No. 567 of 2016, which is pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in which, the issues are yet to be framed and hearing on the Injunction Application is to take place. The same Vendor appears to have executed and registered a Sale-Deed in favour of a third party, one Mr. Hanubhai Ramjibhai Sanghai, which Sale Deed is also said to have been challenged in the same Suit for specific performance namely,

Civil Suit No.567 of 2016.

3. The Appellants - Petitioners further claimed that the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation served the impugned Notice-cum- Order dated 31.03.2016 under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 seeking to evict them from the said site in question on the ground that a public road was to be widened to the extent of 24 Mtrs. at the said place and to protect their right of possession, which they claimed through the said Agreement to Sell of 1986. The Appellants - Petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by way of aforesaid Writ Petition, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned before us and hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants - Petitioners, Mr. Vikram J. Thakor, submitted that the appellants - petitioners have not encroached any part of the Road intended to be widened and under the Preliminary Scheme and Final Scheme announced by the Town Planing Authority under the provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, the Final Plot and Original Plot over which the Appellants - Petitioners are claiming their rights, is the same and therefore, the Appellants - Petitioners being within the boundary of the said plot of land in question, are not encroachers of the land in question anyways, and therefore, the impugned notice given by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation deserves to be quashed and set aside leaving the rights of the parties under the Agreement of 1986, to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid Civil Suit.

5. The learned counsel also submitted that the Appellants - Petitioners deposited the fees for regularization of some construction raised by them on the said land in question, as the possession of the land in question was given to them by the Vendor and receipts of Rs.10,000/- each for three of such petitioners are produced on record. The said Receipts are dated 14.06.2004. He submitted that these payment of fees for regularization would not have been taken by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, if the Appellants - Petitioners had encroached upon any part of the public road, and therefore, it should be presumed that the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has regularized the said construction over the land in question belonging to the Appellants - Petitioners. However, no such order of regularization was passed and had it been passed, it was for the Appellants – Petitioners to place the same on record.

6. After the dismissal of the Writ Petition, in the present intra-Court Appeal, an interim order came to be passed by a co-ordinate Bench of