ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh Chokshi for the respondent no.3, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent no.2, learned advocate Mr. P.Y. Divyeshvar for the respondent no.4 and learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi for the respondent – State through video conference. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) To admit and allow the present petition; (B) To quash and set aside the impugned order i.e. commencement letter (Rajachitti) dated 20.03.2020 issued at the behest of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to the respondent no.3 for constructing and occupying on the final plot No.933/9 + 933/9 + 933/10, T.P. Scheme No.3, Elisbridge, Western Zone, Ahmedabad (at Annexure-A). (C) To stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order i.e. commencement letter (Rajachitti) dated 20.03.2020 issued at the behest of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to the respondent no.3 for constructing and occupying on the final plot No.933/9 + 933/9 + 933/10, T.P. Scheme No.3, Elisbridge, Western Zone, Ahmedabad. (D) To direct the respondent no.2 in consonance with the respondent no.5 – authority to conduct a fresh measurement from the protected monument to the disputed parcel of land in accordance with law. (E) To grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1 The petitioner is a resident of Bhagwan Nagar Chali, Paldi, Ahmedabad. 3.2 Respondent no.3 – Yashvi Infra Build filed an application before respondent no.2Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to get the permission for construction on the Final Plot No.933/8 + 933/9 + 933/10 situated at T.P. Scheme No.3, Ellisbridge, Western Zone, Ahmedabad. Respondent no.2 granted permission (rajachitti) on 28.6.2017. 3.3 The petitioner filed an application before respondent no.2 pointing out that the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short “the Act, 1958”) are violated while granting the permission to respondent no.3 vide rajachitti dated 28.6.2017. The petitioner pointed out that mandatory distance of 100 mtrs, from a protected heritage monument namely, Rani mosque was not kept while granting permission by respondent no.2 and hence, such rajachitti was required to be withdrawn. The petitioner pointed out that mandatory distance of 100 mtrs, from a protected heritage monument namely, Rani mosque was not kept while granting permission by respondent no.2 and hence, such rajachitti was required to be withdrawn. 3.4 It appears that respondent no.2 authority thereafter stayed the permission granted to respondent no.3 and by letter dated 14.1.2019 informed the competent authority, State of Gujarat to examine and undertake necessary steps. 3.5 It appears that the competent authority, State of Gujarat referred the issue to National Monument Authority of India, New Delhi and thereafter, vide order dated 30.10.2019 in its 250th meeting, it was decided by the said authority that no construction would be allowed in the prohibited area under any circumstances. 3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 did not stop the construction undertaken by him and therefore, the petitioner was again constrained to inform respondent no.2 Corporation by preferring various applications. 3.7 It appears that respondent no.2 issued another intimation dated 9th December, 2019 to the competent authority, State of Gujarat, indicating the fact that dispute with regard to the land in question would not come within the jurisdiction of respondent no.2 authority and therefore, necessary steps should be taken by the competent authority under the Act, 1958. 3.8 It appears that National Monument Authority of India respondent no.4 reconsidered the case of respondent no.3 in its 256th Meeting rejecting the permission to construct and directed the ASI to place the report of the distance mismatch within one month before the authority. 3.9 According to the petitioner, respondent no.2 by misinterpreting the resolution of respondent no.4 granted No Objection Certificate to respondent no.3 vide letter dated 25.2.2020. 3.10 It appears that pursuant to the inquiry made by the petitioner, respondent no.5 Superintending Archaeologist informed the petitioner that no permission was granted by the office of respondent no.5. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mistry for the petitioner prayed for time to file affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 on 7th January, 2021. However, no such rejoinder is filed in spite of giving an opportunity to the advocate for the petitioner. 5. Today, when the matter is calledout, learned advocate Mr. Mistry submitted that learned advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyay appears on his behalf and he has some personal difficulty and therefore, time may be granted. 6. However, no such rejoinder is filed in spite of giving an opportunity to the advocate for the petitioner. 5. Today, when the matter is calledout, learned advocate Mr. Mistry submitted that learned advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyay appears on his behalf and he has some personal difficulty and therefore, time may be granted. 6. The respondent nos.4 and 5, has averred on oath in affidavitinreply as under : “3. It is submitted that the instant matter pertains to construction work in property bearing no. Final Plot no.933/8 + 933/9 + 933/10, T.P. Scheme No.3 located at T.P. Scheme no.3, Paldi, Ahmedabad (“Said Property”). The construction has been carreid out on the said property done on the basis of the recommendation given by NMA. The petitioner, who is a resident of Bhagwan Nagari Chal, Pali living nearby to the said property has approached the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad against the permission granted by Respondent no.2 for occupying the said property by issuing a “Rajachitti” dated 20th March, 2020 to Respondent no.3. The petitioner filed the instant petition to quash the permission granted by the respondent no.2 on the abovesaid property. 3.1 The said property comes within the regulated area of Centrally Protected Monument “Small Stone Mosque”. 3.2 In so far as the application for grant of NOC is concerned, the application was filed by Shri Prafulkumar Trambaklal. The National Monuments Authority first received the application from the Competent Authority, Gujarat on 17th August, 2016 for seeking permission for construction of the building for a height of 31.14 meters and this application was placed in 142nd of NMA meeting held on 10th and 11th November, 2016 and deferred this matter as the applicant was asked to submit revised building plan with the total height of building restricted to 22.80 meters. (including mumty, parapet, waterstorage tank etc.). Thereafter, the Competent Authority forwarded the revised building plan to NMA which was received on 4th January, 2017 and the same was recommended by the Authority for Grant of NOC in its 147th meeting held on 23rd February, 2017 for a height of 20.80 meters (including mumty, parapet, lift room, waterstorage tank etc.). (including mumty, parapet, waterstorage tank etc.). Thereafter, the Competent Authority forwarded the revised building plan to NMA which was received on 4th January, 2017 and the same was recommended by the Authority for Grant of NOC in its 147th meeting held on 23rd February, 2017 for a height of 20.80 meters (including mumty, parapet, lift room, waterstorage tank etc.). It may be submitted that in the minutes as well as in the recommendation letter dated 8th March, 2017 issued by the NMA, owing to a typographical error the permissible height of the building was written as 20.80 meters instead of 22.80 meters. The same was later corrected by the Authority in its 210th meeting held on 14th January, 2019 and accordingly the change in the height to 22.80 meters was conveyed. 3.3 However, inexplicably the petition in his petition claims that respondent no.3 (builder for NOC applicant) has started construction within the prohibited area and not as per the recommendation given by the NMA in its 147th meeting, as submitted above. 3.4 The NMA recommended the application of Shri Prafulkumar Trambaklal and others after examining the inspection report forwarded by the office of Competent Authority, Gujarat. In the report, it was specifically written that 102 meters is the Distance of the said property from the Centrally Protected Monument “Small Stone Mosque”. 3.5 It is submitted that NMA received a letter dated 26th July, 2019 from Competent Authority, Gujarat stating that the Respondent no.5 Superintending Archaeologist, ASI received a complaint from the local residents after two years that the construction work in said property is partially falling in the Prohibited Area. In this regard, the office of the Competent Authority, Gujarat has confirmed that the construction work int eh said property is completed and only flooring; plastering, doors and installing of windows etc., are remaining. It is submitted that the earlier survey was also conducted by ASI on the basis of which permission was granted. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that the original report dated 20th July, 2016 clearly mention that the building falls within the regulated area at a distance of 102 meters. Therefore, after more than two years Respondent no.5 (ASI) has revised its own survey and informed the office of Competent Authority, Gujarat that the building partially falls in the prohibited area. Therefore, after more than two years Respondent no.5 (ASI) has revised its own survey and informed the office of Competent Authority, Gujarat that the building partially falls in the prohibited area. In this respect, it is evident that the respondent no.5 (ASI) has furnished two different reports for the same building plan at two different occasions and requested the Competent Authority, Gujarat to take suitable decision after a lapse of more than 2 years. 3.7 In view of the aforesaid, NMA reconsidered the NOC of applicant Shri Prafulkumar Trambaklal in its 250th meeting held on 30th October, 2019 and it was decided that a clear set back of one meter should be ensured from the protected limit and the building height was restricted to 22.80 meters (including mumty, parapet, waterstorage tank, lift room etc.) as recommended by NMA in its 210th meeting held on 14th January, 2019. The office of Competent Authority, Gujarat vide its letter dated 4th December, 2019 conveyed the decision of NMA to the applicant. 3.8 The issue was again considered by NMA in its 256th meeting held on 18th December, 2019 and asked clarifications from the applicant in respect of as to how the discrepancy occurred and directed the office of Competent Authority, Gujarat and the office of Respondent no.5 (ASI) to submit a report within one month on the distance mismatch issue. 3.9 It is further submitted that NMA made its recommendations for grant of NOC in this matter as per the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and as per the inspection report received from time to time the office of Competent Authority, Gujarat and ASI. The NMA acted as per law and it may also be submitted that there are no contentions by the petitioner against NMA, neither in the Grounds nor in the prayer, as submitted by the petitioner in his petition. 3.10 The main contention of the petitioner is to quash and set aside the impugned order i.e. commencement letter (Rajachitti) dated 20th March, 2020 issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to Respondent no.3 (the builder) for construction on the site under question. 3.10 The main contention of the petitioner is to quash and set aside the impugned order i.e. commencement letter (Rajachitti) dated 20th March, 2020 issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to Respondent no.3 (the builder) for construction on the site under question. However, it may be stated here that in the Grounds – E as submitted in the petition by the petitioner, it has been stated that the Competent Authority has purposefully made false readings in the measurement in the survey conducted by them to protect the respondent no.3 (the builder) for monetary and other unknown reasons and the petitioner has sought to quash the permission for construction. In this respect, it may be stated that in so far as Authority is concerned, it acted as per law and it recommended after carefully scrutinizing the application.” 7. Considering the above averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, the grievance raised in the petition is redressed and no further order is required to be passed. 8. Moreover, the respondent no.2 – Corporation has also filed a detailed reply placing on record the photographs, as well as, the action taken report by the respondent no.2 for removing the unauthorized construction putup by the respondent no.3. 9. Learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the respondent-corporation relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. “2. The respondent no.2 submits that a Final Plot Nos.933/8, 933/9 and 933/10 of T.P. Scheme No.3 (Ellisbridge) admeasuring 358 sq. mtrs., 358 sq. mtrs. And 400 sq. mtrs are situated nearby “Bhagwan Nagar no Tekro”, near National Institute of Design, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The respondent no.2 submits that plans and layouts along with application for Development Permission were submitted by the respondent no.3 for construction of residential flats on these three plots collectively. It is stated that a Certificate dated 30th March, 2017 issued by the respondent no.4 was enclosed therewith and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is submitted that as per that Certificate, a permission of reconstruction with total height of 20.80 mtrs. was granted. The respondent no.2 submits that the plans and layouts were sanctioned and the Development Permission was granted on 28th June, 2017 permitting height of 20.60 mtrs., and a copy of the Development Permission/ Commencement Letter (Raja Chiththi) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. 3. was granted. The respondent no.2 submits that the plans and layouts were sanctioned and the Development Permission was granted on 28th June, 2017 permitting height of 20.60 mtrs., and a copy of the Development Permission/ Commencement Letter (Raja Chiththi) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. 3. The respondent no.2 submits that thereafter present petitioner addressed complaints about the height of the building as well as distance of the building from a Mosque known as “Small Stone Mosque” and some of the letters are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C (colly.). It is submitted that considering the contentions that the distance between Mosque and the property in question under construction was less than 100 mtrs, it was thought fit to suspend the Development Permission / Commencement Letter through order dated 8th March, 2019 and a copy of the order is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D. Accordingly, the respondent no.3 was instructed to stop the construction at the site through a letter dated 27th March, 2019 and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E. 4. The respondent no.2 submits that thereafter there was a correspondence in this regard between respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as another office at Gandhinagar and ultimately site was inspected and measured by their officers independently and a letter dated 6th December, 2019 was addressed by the Competent Authority i.e. Gujarat National Monument Authority, Gandhinagar to respondent no.3 that the distance of building was 99.18 mtrs. From the protected limit of the Centrally protected Monument and therefore, a clear set back of one mtr. should be ensured from the protected limit as per the letter received from National Monument Authority and a copy of the letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-F. The respondent no.2 submits that a copy thereof was also marked to it also. The respondent no.2 submits that thereafter another letter was addressed by the Director (Construction) of Government of India, Ministry of Culture, National Monument Authority on 14th January, 2020 with regard to the property in question to the Competent Authority i.e. Director of Archeology, Gandhinagar stating therein that as the construction was already raised at the site, it should not be physically moved back at this stage and the applicant cannot be held responsible for error in measurement of distance, if any and copy of the letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G. 5. The respondent no.2 submits that considering these letters/ Certificates from the respondent no.4 Authority, it was thought fit to grant a revised Development Permission in favour of the Respondent no.3 on 20th March, 2020 permitting height of 20.60 mtrs. and a copy of Development Permission/ Commencement Letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H. 6. The respondent no.2 submits that the original distance was 99.18 mtrs. and now it is increased to 100.38 mtrs. and a copy of the Sketch is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. In other words the construction at site is as per the revised Development Permission/ Commencement Letter issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as well as No Objection Certificate/ Letters issued by the respondent no.4 and therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no illegality or irregularity in construction as alleged by the petitioner who has no locus standi to file such petition. 7. The respondent no.2 submits that so far as civil litigation referred to by the petitioner and more particularly First Appeal no.322 of 2018 is concerned, it is most respectfully stated that Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is not a party respondent in the said proceedings and hence, no comments are offered thereon. 8. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the respondent no.2 herein most respectfully submits that no irregularity or illegality is permitted by it and the Development Permission as well as revised Development Permission are granted on the basis of the No Objection Certificates/ Letters issued by the respondent no.4 and the construction at site is also accordingly and the present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits. The respondent no.2 submits that as per the Common General Development Control Regulations, it has granted Development Permission as well as revised Development Permission after considering the No Objection Certificates issued by Archaeological Survey of India. It is submitted that the provisions of Regulation No.30.2.6 is strictly followed and therefore, the submissions and allegations are thoroughly baseless and made with an ulterior motive. A copy of relevant Regulation No.30.2.6 of Common General Development Control Regulations is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-J. The respondent no.2 submits that so far the respondent no.3 has not submitted an application for Building Usage Permission. A copy of relevant Regulation No.30.2.6 of Common General Development Control Regulations is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-J. The respondent no.2 submits that so far the respondent no.3 has not submitted an application for Building Usage Permission. It is stated that on receipt of such application, further actions would be taken to verify that the existing structure is in accordance with the existing Development Permission and only thereafter, Building Usage Permission would be granted.” 10. In view of the aforesaid fact situation, which is not controverted by the petitioner, no purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, as the grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is redressed in view of the aforesaid averments made on oath on behalf of the respondent authorities. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.