ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed for the following reliefs:

“10(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining permanently the Respondent No.2 from deducting land and/or demolishing any structures from the Units of the Petitioners situated on Final Plot No.48, Village: Udhana, District:

Surat;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, Your Lordships be pleased restrain the Respondent No.2 from deducting land and/or demolishing any structures from the Units of the Petitioners situated on Final Plot No.48, Village : Udhana, District : Surat and/or to maintain status quo with respect to Final Plot No.48, Village : Udhana, District : Surat under Town Planning Scheme Surat No.2;

(C) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayar (B)

above may kindly be granted.

(D) xxxxx”

2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Devnani for the petitioners, at the outset, referred to the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed to the affidavit-in-reply of the respondents and submitted that after 26 years of the implementation of the Final Town Planning Scheme, the officers of respondent no.2 corporation, without any notice, had commenced taking certain measurements of the Units of the Petitioners and on inquiry, it was intimated that such measurements were taken for the purpose of demolition for certain portions of land of the Units of the petitioners and the petitioners were informed that on account of implementation of a Draft Town Planning Scheme, such demolition was being carried out. It is submitted that in fact, the Draft Town Planning Scheme was of Surat viz.

57 (Pandesara) while the petitioners are situated within the Final Town Planning Scheme No.Udhana-2. It is further submitted that the petition is filed in the year 2015 and as on today, there exists a footpath, adjacent to the footpath is a motorable road and of such motorable road is a corridor for BRTS on the side of the Town Planning Scheme of Udhana and there is no requirement of demolition at this stage. It is submitted that since 2015 till today, the respondent no.2 Corporation has in fact developed the footpath and the road with street lights even after filing of the present petition and therefore, it appears that at this stage, even the respondent no.2-corporation is not interested in any proceedings for demolition. However, it is prayed that the respondent no.2 Corporation be directed to atleast give a notice for a period of four weeks before proposing or taking any action under any provision of law.

4. Considering the averments made in the petition, considering the above submissions, the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2-corporation and the affidavit-in- rejoinder filed by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion to dispose off this petition, in view of the averments made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder of the petitioners, by directing the respondent no.2-Corporation to give a notice for a period of four weeks to the present petitioners before proposing or taking any action under any provision of law and thereafter, the respondent corporation may proceed further, if required, in accordance with law.

5. With the above direction, this petition is disposed off as no further reliefs prayed for in this petition are pressed by the petitioners. Direct service is permitted.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)

SRILATHA