Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1023 (GUJ)

Amarsinhbhai Dhanjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2019-10-22

V.M.PANCHOLI

body2019
ORDER : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, "(A) xxxx (B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ by quashing and setting aside the order dt. 13-09-2019 and letter dt. 20-08-2019 as mentioned in the Annexure-A; Alternatively (C) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ by issuing direction to the respondents to keep reserve final plot no. 67 on Southern side instead of Northern side of revenue surrey no. 217 in T.P. No. 75 of Chandkheda in the large interest of justice; (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operations of the order dt. 13-09-2019 and letter dt. 20-08-2019 as mentioned in the annexure-A in the large interest of justice; (E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the revenue survey no. 217 paiki; (F) xxxx." 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. P.V. Patadiya for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent - State. 3. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are as under, 3.1 The petitioner and his three sons are doing business in the name and style of Murlidhar Trading Co. in the land bearing Survey No. 221/1 situated at Highway Road, Chandkheda, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the property in question"). Before 2008, the petitioner was using the said property in question as tenant and in the year 2008, the petitioner had purchased the property in question by registered sale deed from the original land owner. Since there was certain unauthorized construction, the petitioner paid impact fees before the respondents and the said construction was regularized. Thereafter on 17.06.2009, the notice for Revenue Survey No. 217 (Final Plot No. 32/1) was served to the original land owners with respect to draft Town Planning Scheme No. 75 and in pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner submitted written objection on 25.06.2015 along with documentary evidence. Thereafter on 17.06.2009, the notice for Revenue Survey No. 217 (Final Plot No. 32/1) was served to the original land owners with respect to draft Town Planning Scheme No. 75 and in pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner submitted written objection on 25.06.2015 along with documentary evidence. 3.2 However as there was some discrepancy of measurement of the land bearing Survey No. 217 in the revenue record as well as actual measurement, the representation was made by the petitioner, however, no reply was received from the respondent authority. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 6989/2016 and the said petition was disposed of by an order dated 24.11.2016 with a liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the State Government and other authorities and in pursuance to the said order, the petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities. 3.3 On 20.08.2019, the respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner about the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme No. 75 and Revenue Survey No. 217 pk. was renumbered and allotted as Final Plot No. 32. The petitioner filed objection on 23.08.2019 and 09.09.2019 with regard to Final Plot No. 67, which is reserved in the town planning scheme. It is alleged that without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, now the impugned order is passed by the respondent no. 4. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended that only request of the petitioner before the respondent authority is that the reserved final plot be given on northern side of the plot of the petitioner since the adjacent land of southern side is possessed and owned by the petitioner and because of the action of the respondent authority of allotting reserved final plot on the southern side, entire property of the petitioner would be devalued and, therefore, the representation was made before the respondent authority, however, the said representation is not considered by the respondent authority, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP has referred to the representation dated 20.12.2016 made by the petitioner before the respondent authority, copy of which is produced at Page No. 56 of the compilation. After referring to the said representation, it is contended that the petitioner has not requested the respondent authority for the change of reserved final plot. It is, therefore, urged that this Court may not entertain this petition. 6. After referring to the said representation, it is contended that the petitioner has not requested the respondent authority for the change of reserved final plot. It is, therefore, urged that this Court may not entertain this petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the petitioner initially filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6989/2016 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2016 granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the State Government as well as the Chief Town Planner, Gujarat State and the authorities were directed to consider the objection/representation that may be filed by the petitioner before sanctioning the scheme. It is further revealed that thereafter the objections raised by the petitioner were considered by the respondent authorities and now the impugned order is passed. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was given opportunity of being heard before the respondent authority and the objections raised by the petitioner on 31.08.2019 are reproduced in the impugned order. If the said objections are carefully seen, it is revealed that the grievance of the petitioner before the authority was that land of the petitioner is kept under reservation and no final plot is allotted to the petitioner. The said objection was considered by the respondent authority and, thereafter, the impugned order is passed by the respondent authority on 13.09.2019. It is also revealed that after hearing was over on 31.08.2019, letter was written by the petitioner for changing reservation of final plot no. 67 from southern side to northern side of the land of the petitioner, another representation was made on 21.09.2019 i.e. after the order was passed by the respondent authority. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the respondent authority has committed any error while passing impugned order on 13.09.2019. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.