Gujarat High Court
Anuj Kanubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 9 October, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/5540/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 5540 of 2014
==========================================================
ANUJ KANUBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NILESH A PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 09/10/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs;
"(A) grant this application.
(B) pass appropriate orders and be pleased to permit the applicants to be impleaded as party respondents nos.4 to 11 in the main petition being Special Criminal Application No.5540 of 2014 and the cause title of the main petition may be ordered to be amended accordingly.
(C ) that any just and proper order may be passed"
Page 1 of 5HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 16 00:20:34 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/5540/2014 ORDER
2. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner herein wants to put up the construction of a residential complex on a land bearing Survey No. 150 situated in village Akota, now Final Plot No.296 in Final Town Planing Scheme No.22 at Vadodara. It appears that there are in all ten plots with the necessary N.A. permission. The petitioner herein wants to put up the construction on plot No.8. The applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.4224 of 2015 who wants to be impleaded in the main petition are residing on the plots adjoining to plot No.8. Their objection is that plot No.8 is a common plot and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to put up any construction on the common plot. The petitioner had to file this petition because according to him, although he has the requisite permission for putting up the construction from the concerned authorities, yet the applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.4224 of 2015 are creating unnecessary obstruction and hindrance. The allegations are that they are not permitting the petitioner to start with the construction.
3. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, on 9th September, 2015, the following order was passed in the application seeking impleadment as party respondents.
"Mr.Dagli, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant is permitted to implead the Vadodara Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner as the party respondent no.4.
Let notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondent no.4, returnable after two weeks. On the returnable date, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation shall point out, whether any valid permission has been granted to the petitioner to put up the construction on the plot in question. The Corporation shall also point out, whether Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 16 00:20:34 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/5540/2014 ORDER the plot in question is a common plot as asserted by the persons who have raised objection.
Direct service is permitted."
4. In the main matter, on 24th December, 2014, the following order was passed;
"It appears that vide communication dated 21st November, 2014, the Deputy Administrative Officer, Office of the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, has passed an order declining the request made by the petitioner for police protection on the premise that the property in question is in dispute and, therefore, no police protection can be provided at the time of making construction over the plot. Mr. Dagli, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that he is the owner of the plot and, as such, there is no dispute with regard to the right, title and interest over the plot. However, for some oblique motive and consideration, the people residing in the near by locality are not permitting his client to commence with the construction. This aspect of the matter may be once again looked into by the Police Commissioner, and if any inquiry as regards the right, title and interest over the plot is concerned, the same may be verified through the petitioner.
Let this matter appear on 9th January, 2015.
Direct service is permitted."
5. Mr. Nilesh Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the Vadodra Municipal Corporation submitted that the Corporation has no objection so far as putting up the construction on plot No.8 is concerned as plot No.8 is not a common plot. Mr. Pandya further submitted that the Corporation has issued the necessary permission in favour of the petitioner according to the GDCR.
Page 3 of 5
HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 16 00:20:34 IST 2015
R/SCR.A/5540/2014 ORDER
6. Mr. V.K. Anandjiwala, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants who are opposing the construction pointed out that plot No.8 is in dispute. He submitted that the same is a common plot and the title over the same is also disputed. He further submitted that his clients have taken up the matter with the Collector, Vadodara and the issue is at large before the Collector, Vadodara. He submitted that in such circumstances, no relief be granted to the petitioner.
7. Mr. Dagli, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that his client holds a valid permission as on today to put up the construction but since he belongs to a particular community, the applicants seeking impleadment, have an objection. Mr. Dagli further clarified that although his client belongs to a minority community and is a builder, yet he has assured the persons residing in the neighbourhood that he would sell the plots flats to the members belonging to the Hindu community.
8. In such circumstances referred to above, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether police should be asked to intervene in the matter.
9. I have already recorded the facts. The two orders referred to above also makes the picture more than clear. If any dispute is pending before the Collector, Vadodara as regards the right, title and interest over the plot No.8 in question, the Collector shall see to it that the same is resolved at the earliest in accordance with law. So far as police protection is concerned, the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City shall see to it that no unnecessary obstruction or Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 16 00:20:34 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/5540/2014 ORDER hindrance is created in the way of the petitioner if the petitioner, otherwise, holds a valid permission for putting up the construction in accordance with the GDCR.
10. I am of the view that if it is the case of the petitioner that without any good legal ground if the adjoining plot owners are restraining him from putting up the construction on the plot No.8, he can file a civil suit and pray for an appropriate injunction against the adjoining plot owners. In the same manner, if the adjoining plot owners are of the view that the petitioner has no right to put up any construction on the plot No.8, then they may also file an appropriate suit and seek appropriate injunction in that regard.
11. With the above, this application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 16 00:20:34 IST 2015