The court affirmed the validity of the notices issued under the Town Planning Act, confirming procedures were followed and previous objections were properly addressed.

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Deep Vyas waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This petition is filed seeking to quash and set - aside the notice dated 04.01.2021 issued under S.67 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short 'the TP Act, 1976') under which the petitioner was informed to vacate the land in question, failing which, appropriate action under the provisions of the Act, 1976 has been indicated. The petitioner also challenges the notice dated 13.01.2021 issued under S.68 r/w R.33 of the Act, 1976 whereby once again the petitioner was informed to give vacant possession of the land in question.

3. The facts in brief referred in the petition are as under: -

3.1 The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the land in question and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are occupiers of the shop situated on the land in question. The said land in question is ancestral land of the petitioner and the dispute pertains to land situated with Revenue Survey No. 77 paiki, Moje Vatva, Ahmedabad City (East), District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'). The subject land was included in the Town Planning Scheme No. 89 (Vatva - 1) and under the Town Planning Scheme it was given Original Plot No. 13 and Final Plot No. 13. It is the case of the petitioners that the subject land was purchased by father of petitioner No. 1 through registered sale deed dated 16.10.1967 and Revenue Entry No. 6625 is mutated in revenue record. Subsequently, the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the ULC Act, 1976') were initiated. Accordingly, notices were issued under the ULC Act, 1976 to father of petitioner No. 1 and others affected. At the relevant time, the land was within the limits of the Gram Panchayat and it is case of the petitioner that the father of petitioner No. 1 has constructed small shops over the subject land. The father of petitioner No. 1 expired on 24.12.1998 and mother of petitioner No. 1 expired on 09.08.2014. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 is the only legal heir and handling the subject land. Pursuant to death of father of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner being the sole legal heir he made an application for mutating heirship entry on the subject land and accordingly the same was done by Entry No. 19996 on 13.11.2017. However, because of the proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 the said entry was not recorded in the revenue records. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 being owner of the subject land entered into sale agreement in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are occupiers of shops and doing business. Hence, it is case of the petitioners that the petitioners are owners and occupiers of shops on the subject land since many years. Subsequent thereto, the Government introduced Town Planning Scheme No. 89 (Vatva - 1) wherein the State Government sanctioned the said Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 89 (Vatva - 1) vide notification dated 17.07.2018. Therefore, the property in question is part of Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 89 (Vatva - 1) sanctioned by the State is also not in dispute. It is case of the petitioner that first time the notices were issued on 04.01.2021 followed by 13.01.2021 directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land for implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, aggrieved by which present petition is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar with learned advoca