ORDER :

1.1 The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the impugned notice dated 20.08.2016 issued by the Corporation under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Act and seeking direction against the respondents to allot or give physical vacant and peaceful possession of Final Plot No. 18, 21 and 24 in re-constitution of plots of T.P. Scheme No. 3 (Odhav), Ahmedabad.

1.2 Since the grievance of all the petitioners are the same, this group of petitions are taken for hearing, heard and decided together by this common order, with the request and consent of all the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. Heard Mr. Mahesh A. Parekh, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate for the Corporation and Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned advocate for the State Authorities.

3.1 Mr. Parekh, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the originally occupiers of Survey Nos. 93/1+5, 98, 99 and 102. The land of the said survey numbers are divided into two parts right from the beginning, whereon, the petitioners have been occupying and running their Small Industries in a very small portion of the said Survey Numbers. The petitioners are entered into the said portion of the land by way of Deed of Possession Right from one after another owner/occupier of the said land in question hence the petitioners' occupation have been continuing on a private land last for the several years and the said land at no point of time neither belongs to the State Government nor the Central Government OR Semi-Govt. OR Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

3.2 He has submitted that on the said land, there is no dispute pending or going on before any Court of law or any Tribunal with regards to possession between the owner & the occupiers as there is a Deed of Possessory Right between them.

3.3 He has submitted that after the T.P. Scheme known as T.P. Scheme Odhav-3 was introduced, wherein, Re-Constitution took place under the provisions laid down in Gujarat Town Planning Act and accordingly, Final Plot No. 19 is allotted to the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners have got their said F.P. on their own Survey Number i.e. on the same land on which they have already been in occupation. So, one cannot call them or recognize as illegal encroachers. He has submitted that on the contrary, it was the duty of the respondents while re-constitution that not to create any dispute regarding taking physical possession as the officers of the respondents are knowing well & very well aware about the physical situation of each Final Plots, even then while re-constitution, deliberately, exchanged the land or portion of land & mixed with other adjoining owners of Final Plot.

3.4 He has submitted that ever since reconstitution was introduced, the petitioners had not received any notice with regard to road widening or for any public purpose, but in the year of 2016, out of nowhere, they received a notice under Sec. 68 to r/w Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act and Rules, whereby, the Estate Officer of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has mentioned in the said notice that the petitioners' land of said Survey Numbers have been converted into Original Plot No. 18 and in lieu of that, the petitioners are allotted F.P. Nos. 18, 21 and 24 and further it is stated that some of the portion of the petitioners' land was mixed up with F.P. Nos. 17, 19, 22 and 29.

3.5 He has further submitted that in the Year of 2016, the petitioners received notice under Sec. 68 r/w Rule 33 of the said Act and had immediately approached this Court and has challenged this impugned notice because at no point of time up-to the finalization of the said scheme the respondents had ever called the petitioners for hearing their objections. He has submitted that this Court has, therefore, granted status-quo as the petitioners are running small industries on a small portion of F.P. N