Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 206 (GUJ)

DIPAKBHAI AMRUTBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2015-02-20

R.M.CHHAYA

body2015
JUDGMENT R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Ronak B. Raval, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. D.G. Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 3. The following facts emerged from the record of the petition are noteworthy: That the land in question bearing Final Plot No.63 is situated within the area of Town Planning Scheme No.4 (RundhMagdalla), Surat. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are staying in the houses constructed by them. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are likely to be evicted because the respondent authorities intend to develop the land in question for the Hon'ble Chief Minister Aavas Yojna. It is predominantly contended in the petition that the eviction is likely to take place without following due process of law. It is averred that without affording an opportunity of being heard, the petitioners are likely to be evicted. 4. This Court has passed the following order on 8.5.2014: “It is the case of the petitioners that the authorities have not served with any notice and followed any legal procedure. Petitioners apprehend the demolition of their house since some of the houses on the same land have been demolished by the Corporation. Notice returnable on 17.6.2014. Parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property till then. DS today is permitted.” 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent Corporation has filed a reply through the Executive Engineer, SouthWest Zone, wherein it is pointed out that after following due process of law as prescribed under the the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), the State Government has sanctioned the said Scheme vide notification dated 22.12.2008 under Section 65 of the Act. The respondent Corporation has also produced the relevant material showing the different procedure which is prescribed under the Act. It appears from FormF produced with the affidavit that Final Plot No.63 is reserved for the purpose of Socially and Economically Weaker Section of the society. 6. The respondent Corporation has also produced the relevant material showing the different procedure which is prescribed under the Act. It appears from FormF produced with the affidavit that Final Plot No.63 is reserved for the purpose of Socially and Economically Weaker Section of the society. 6. It is an admitted position that as per the provisions of Section 67(a) of the Act as the land in question is now reserved for the public purpose in favour of the respondent – Surat Municipal Corporation, the same stands vested in it free from all encumbrances. It is, however, provided that Surat Municipal Corporation, as an implementing authority, is duty bound to implement the Scheme in accordance with law that too, after issuing a notice as provided under Section 67 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules. Mr. Nanavati, relying upon the averments made in the affidavit, has already pointed out that such a notice i.e. the notice issued under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33A of the Rules was issued way back on 25.3.2010 without going into the controversy whether the notice is given or not. 7. The petitioners shall file reply/objection/representation by 27.2.2015 before the competent authority of respondent No.2 Corporation. The competent authority of respondent No.2 shall give personal hearing to the petitioners and/or their reply/objection/representation on 9.3.2015. The competent authority shall take final decision upon it latest by 31.3.2015 and the Corporation shall follow the procedure as provided under Section 68 of the Act and Rule 33 of the Rules and as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Babubhai & Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 613 and after adhering to the observations made by the Apex Court in para 8 of the said judgment, shall pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. Adinterim relief granted earlier is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.