Gujarat High Court
Amit Arjandas Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8126 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8126 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
AMIT ARJANDAS BHATIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, LD. AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Satyam Chhaya waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition and civil application are heard together since the issue involved is similar.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
3. This petition is filed directing the respondent authorities not to sanction the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.29 (Sargasan-Tarapur-Unvarsad-Adalaj) and to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner (Page-55) before sanctioning the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.29 (Sargasan-Tarapur-Unvarsad-Adalaj).
Civil Application is filed seeking to direct the respondent authorities to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the Notice dated 26.05.2025 and not to take the possession of the land of the petitioner i.e. land bearing Survey Block No.93 (Old Block No.71) and Block No.95 (Old Block No.72) admeasuring 5463 sq.mtrs. and 10920 sq.mtrs. respectively of Village: Tarapur, District & Sub-District; Gandhinagar, from the petitioner.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jigar Raval for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Satyam Chhaya for respondent No.2.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this petition is in relation to allotment of Final plot against original plot of the petitioner, pursuant to sanctioning of Draft Town Planning Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Scheme No.29 (Sargasan-Tarapur-Unvarsad-Adalaj). Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the said Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned under section 48-A of the Gujarat Urban Development and Town Planning Act (For short "TP Act") on 06.09.2023. Pursuant to the said T.P.Scheme, since the petitioner's land bearing Block No.93 (Old Block No.71) and Block No.95 (Old Block No.72) admeasuring 5463 sq.mtrs. and 10920 sq.mtrs. respectively was forming part of the said Draft Town Planning Scheme No.29, the Town Planning Authority allotted Final Plot No.259 against Block No.93 admeasuring 3279 sq.mtrs. and Final Plot No.261 admeasuring 6559 sq.mtrs. against Block No.95 of the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval submitted that, there is no dispute to the proposition that pursuant to sanctioning of Draft Town Planning Scheme, (Sargasan-Tarapur-Unvarsad- Adalaj); against original plots of petitioner; peaceful vacant possession of Final plots after statutory deduction of 40% was to be given to the petitioner. However, in case of the petitioner the final plots given after deduction to the petitioner was not buildable plot on account of it containing ONGC pipeline. Thus, there is grave injustice to the petitioner as he is not in position to develop the said land.
5.1 Further, in respect of Non-Agriculture Use Permission at Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Page-37, a letter is written by ONGC to the Collector in which it is stated that the land contained ONGC pipelines and there is restriction on construction, therefore it is not in dispute that no construction can be done on final plot allotted to the petitioner.
5.2 Learned advocate submitted that as per the provisions of the Act, peaceful vacant possession of the Final Plot is required to be given having buildable area, which is not case here. Admittedly, there being ONGC pipeline on the land allotted to the petitioner there is grave injustice caused to the petitioner. Therefore, respondents may be directed not to finalized and sanctioned Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.29 (Sargasan-Tarapur-Unvarsad-Adalaj), till decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner.
5.3 Further, if the petitioner's case is considered for allotment of final plot, having buildable area or with lesser deduction, so that he can develop his land pursuant to finalization of Draft Town Planning Scheme No.29, his grievance would be redressed and therefore, Town Planning Authority may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner accordingly, more so, the petitioner is only affected person having no buildable area pursuant to finalization of Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Draft Town Planning Scheme No.29 (Sargasan-Tarapur- Unvarsad-Adalaj).
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Satyam Chhaya could not dispute the above facts.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent No.1 submitted that once Draft Town Planning Scheme has been sanctioned under section 48-A of the TP Act, objections of the petitioner along with others, once again shall be considered by the Town Planning Officer since next stage would be appointment of Town Planning Officer under section 50 of the Act. Once appointment of Town Planning Officer is done, he will issue Notices inviting objections under Rule 26 of the Town Planning Rules. The objections of the petitioner as contained in this petition as well civil application will be considered, at that stage.
8. Considering the above submissions it is noticed that admittedly, pursuant to sanctioning of Town Planning Scheme No.29 (Sargasan-Tarapur-Unvarsad-Adalaj) under section 48(1) of the Town Planning Act vide Notification dated 01.09.2022, against petitioner's original survey numbers, he has been allotted Final Plot Nos.259 and 261 as referred in "F" Form Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined (Page-46 and 49 of the original petition). Thus, allotment of Final Plots against original plots is not in dispute. However, from the map annexed with the petition, it is noticed that there is ONGC pipelines going and admittedly, the petitioner is getting final plot after statutory deduction of 40%. Therefore, it is true that the petitioner is not getting buildable area for this final plot. Moreover, restriction on construction is evident from the communication of the collector at page-37, and therefore, the grievance raised appears to be correct.
9. However, noticing that Town Planning Officer will invite objections of all stake holders and the same shall be considered under Rule 26 of the Town Planning Rules, this court is permitting the petitioner to raise his objections as referred in this petition with relevant documents before Town Planning Officer. Once such objections are raised the same shall be considered by the Town Planning Officer in accordance with Law. The Town Planning Officer is directed to consider the objections objectively and considering the facts of this case.
10. With above directions, the present petition is allowed to the aforestated extent.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8126/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
11. In view of disposal of this petition, civil application (for stay) No.1 of 2025 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. Rule made is absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) DIPTI PATEL...
Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:05 IST 2025