Gujarat High Court
Raghubhai Ramjibhai Rabari vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1420/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1420 of 2025
==========================================================
RAGHUBHAI RAMJIBHAI RABARI
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR NINAD P SHAH(10911) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SH VIRK for G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the notice dated 17.01.2025 issued under Section 267 of the Gujarat Provisional Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short "the Act 1949"), the notice dated 21.01.2025 issued under Section 260(1) of the Act 1949 and the order dated 29.01.2025 passed under Section 260(2) the Act 1949.
2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ninad Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk for respondents on advance copy.
3. Learned senior counsel Mr.Mehta for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 29.01.2025 passed under Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1420/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Section 260(2) of the Act 1949 is bad in law because prior to the said order, 15 days' time as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3291 was not provided. Since the order under Section 260(2) of the Act 1949 is bad in law, the earlier notice and the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner herein is lawful owner of the subject land by execution of registered sale deed in his favour. The construction carried out is in the nature of renovation or restructuring of earlier construction of his ownership, however, no development permission is available with the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that if the opportunity is provided to the petitioner, he will produce necessary documents and made an application, if permissible, before the authority, seeking regularization of unauthorised construction. Therefore appropriate directions may be issued.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk for the respondents submitted that earlier notice under Section 260(1) of the Act 1949 was served to the petitioner by giving him opportunity to file reply and opportunity of hearing was also provided (Annexure R page 169) . The notice under Section 260(1) refers to time given to file reply and hearing fixed on 23.01.2025. In response to that, the petitioner filed his reply Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1420/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined (page 176). After consideration of the reply, the order dated 29.01.2025, under Section 260(2) of the Act 1949, was passed and thus there is no illegality. Further, in the order dated 29.01.2025, reasons are provided for such action. Moreover, the construction was done without prior development permission. The regularization of unauthorised construction is permissible, if the construction is prior to the cut of date, which is not the case here.
5. Considered the submissions. From the documents on record, it is noticed that prior to the order under Section 260(2) of the Act 1949 dated 29.01.2025, the petitioner was served with the notice dated 21.01.2025 under Section 260(1) of the Act 1949. In response thereto, the petitioner filed his reply and the same was also considered. Further, for the construction carried out, the petitioner does not have any development permission. Noticing the above fact and considering the submissions of the petitioner that if an opportunity will be provided, the petitioner will be in a position to produce necessary documents and if permissible, will also file an application seeking regularization of unauthorised construction.
6. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to remain present with the relevant document before respondent Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1420/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined No.2, on 07.02.2025 at 3:30 p.m. The said opportunity granted to the petitioner shall be sufficient and final opportunity to raise his contentions. It is open for the authority to consider the contention raised by the petitioner and to pass order in accordance with law.
7. With above directions, the petition is disposed of. This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and it is open for the authority to decide in accordance with law.
8. The status-quo as on today shall be maintained by both the parties till the order is passed by respondent No.2, as directed herein above and communicate to the petitioner.
9. Direct service of order is permitted.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V./03-SB-I Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Tue Feb 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 04 22:36:35 IST 2025