Gujarat High Court
Pushpaben Pravinbhai Vaniya vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 28/05/2025
Pronounced On : 14/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7357 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PUSHPABEN PRAVINBHAI VANIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRIYANK V PANDYA(10705) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,
4,5,6,7,8,9
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR(2221) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,
4,5,6,7,8,9
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners herein, having been aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.2, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, inter alia, in issuing the order dated 21.05.2025 of the respondent no.3, the Assistant Estate Officer, calling on the petitioners to vacate the subject premises, situated on Original Plot Nos.181 and 182 of Page 1 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Survey No.156 and 181 (original Revenue Survey No.156 and 181) of Village Acher, Sabarmati Taluka, Ahmedabad, have preferred the present Special Civil Application.
2. The prayer clause of the Special Civil Application No. 7357 / 2025 reads thus:
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-A) and notice dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioners and be pleased to quash and set aside the entire exercise of evicting the petitioners and removing /demolishing the properties occupied by the petitioners situated on land mentioned in sketch overleaf the impugned notice dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B).
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned T.P. Scheme being Final T.P. Scheme No. 23(Sabarmati) being illegal and unconstitutional so far as it affects and relates to properties occupied by the petitioners mentioned in the sketch with notice dated 19.04.2025.
(D) During the pendency and till final disposal of the petition, by way of interim relief, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-A) and notice dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent no. 3 and be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any further action against Page 2 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the petitioners in pursuance of order and notice Annexure-A and B and be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain the status quo in respect of the properties of the petitioners.
(E) Any other relief deemed fit to meet the ends of justice may be granted.
3. The factual narration, as is forthcoming from the pleadings in the present Special Civil Application, is as follows:
a. The petitioners, who are occupants, having their residences and small space for their livelihood, allegedly since last many decades, have received impugned order dated 21.05.2025, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the land mentioned in the said order within seven days to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.2 herein. That vide the said order, passed by respondent no. 3, Assistant Estate Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, it has been stated that failing the handing over of the possession as aforesaid, the eviction of the petitioners shall follow, including the demolition of the properties of the petitioners.Page 3 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined b. Before the passing of the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, notices dated 19.04.2025, under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter, the Town Planning Act), read with Rule 33 under the Rules framed thereunder, were served up on the petitioners, calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections.
c. In the response to the said notice dated 19.04.2025, the petitioners had filed their objections dated 25.04.2025, inter alia, stating specifically that the respondent no.3 does not have authority, power or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section-68 of the Town Planning Act. In addition to the said objections, the petitioners also submitted their written submissions on 06.05.2025, in pursuance of the notice for hearing, dated 02.05.2025. In the said written submissions also, it was agitated that authority, respondent no.3, the Assistant Estate Officer, did not have power or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section-68 of the Town Planning Act; that the TP scheme had been formulated in respect of a fully constructed area; that the Town Page 4 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Planning Scheme was sought to be being implemented after a period of 41 years; that the petitioners have purchased part of the land of survey no.156 from its original owner and have constructed their residential property in the said TP scheme and that they (the purchaser-petitioners) were not given any opportunity of hearing thereby not allowed to participate in the process of TP Scheme, even when the impugned eviction proceedings have the effect of rendering the petitioners homeless, etc. d. The petitioners are individuals who claim to have purchased plot(s) of land in the very area, referred to hereinabove and claim to be living there for more than 60 years. That they are now being sought to be displaced on the ground of implementation of TP Scheme, after approximately 40 years of the said TP Scheme coming into force. As per the petitioners, initially, the original revenue survey number 156 of the village Acher, Taluka Sabarmati, District, Ahmedabad, belonged to one Amarsinh Thakor, and after his death, the names of his heirs were recorded in the Village Form No. 7/12. The Page 5 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined petitioners / their predecessors-in-title were tenants of the original owner, whose names have allegedly been mutated in the said Village Form-F, issued in the name of Somaji Amarsinh and others and that the concerned area was known as Baldevnagar. Later on, the original owners sold certain plots, by dividing the area into smaller plots and sold such plots to different persons, i.e., to various existing tenants and also others, including petitioners / their predecessors-in-title and received full consideration. The Petitioners and other purchasers, who were original tenants, claim that they have spent their life's earnings in constructing their residences, to have a shelter over their heads. All the petitioners claim that they have such documents, i.e., Sale Agreement, but at the time of filing the petition, the said papers had not been produced. Albeit, the petitioners have averred that they undertake to produce documents, as and when required. A sample of such Sale Agreement, dated 20.04.1987, in favour of father of the petitioner no.2, has been annexed to the petition as Annexure-G. Earlier, it was alleged, the very individual owner had also issued a rent receipt to the father of the petitioner no.2, evidencing that the latter was Page 6 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined a tenant of the former for the premises concerned. Of course, for evidencing possession, the said petitioner has produced an electricity bill (annexed to the Petition at Annexure-J), of Torrent Power Limited for the said premises concerned. Similarly, for further buttressing the said petitioner's case as regards the possession, the petitioner has produced a tax bill issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - respondent no.2 herein, wherein the father of the petitioner no.2 has been shown as the person in possession.
e. It is alleged by the petitioners that during the process of framing the Town Planning Scheme - the Ahmedabad Town Planning Scheme No.26, neither the petitioners, nor their predecessors-in-title, or occupants of existing constructions, have been given any personal notice. Rather, a public notice dated 01.09.2023 was issued by the Respondent No. 2 for declaring various areas, including part of Baldevnagar, as Slum Clearance Area. The petitioners allege that as per their knowledge, the area covering the petitioners' residential area of Page 7 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Baldevnagar was not included in the Slum Clearance Area1. That there are certain Redevelopment Schemes undertaken in the surrounding area of the petitioners' residential area, under which the occupants of existing constructions are given benefit of Redevelopment Scheme. But the petitioners have not been given any benefit of any Redevelopment Scheme.
f. That in Baldevnagar, there are about 200 people who have constructed a shelter over their heads. That the street light, drainage-lines and water connections, together with road facilities have been provided in the said area.
g. That the TP scheme number 23 (Sabarmati) was finalised on 09.01.1984. The area occupied by the petitioners, is where a 24 m wide TP Road falls. Thus, as per the Petitioners, the said TP Road is to be constructed on an already fully constructed area, because of which, as per the petitioners, about a hundred odd properties in the said area is likely to be affected. Thus, the said proposal is not logical or feasible and was not implemented till now, 1 Note by this Court:- This part has nothing to do with the Town Planning Act, as declaration of Slum Clearance Zone is under a distinct Act. Page 8 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined even when the said Scheme was finalised on 09.01.1984. Now, as per the petitioners, after a period of 40 years, in the year 2025, the said finalised TP Scheme is being implemented by impugned proceedings, initiated by the respondent no.3 under Section-68 of the Town Planning Act, read with Rule 33 of the Town Planning Rules, 1979. h. Hence the petitioners have approached this Court under the present proceedings.
4. Heard Ld. Advocates for the Parties.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Priyank V Pandya and Mr. Vikram J Thakor appearing for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order and notices are in gross violation of Articles-14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. That summary eviction proceedings initiated by the Assistant Estate Officer is without authority, power and jurisdiction and therefore, are not sustainable. That such proceedings, if any, can be initiated only by the Appropriate Authority and not by the Assistant Estate Officer. In any case, such an Assistant Estate Officer cannot be stated to be an Appropriate Authority, which has been defined at section Page 9 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined 2(iii) of the Town Planning Act. Thus, according to the Ld. Advocate, the Appropriate Authority could be either the Area Development Authority or the Urban Development Authority in terms of said section. Again, the said Area Development Authority and Urban Development Authority have respectively been defined at section 2(vi) and 2(xxviii) of the Act. It was submitted that the Area Development Authority, in terms of the aforesaid definition includes Local Authority, which, in turn, have been defined under section 2(xiv) of the Town Planning Act. As per the said definition at Section 2(xiv), the Local Authorities would include a Municipal Corporation. Thus, an Asst. Estate could not have exercised those powers.
6. It was further submitted that section 23(2) of the Town Planning Act provides for delegation of powers and functions of Area Development Authority to the Local Authority, which includes the Municipal Corporation. Thus, according to the learned advocate, the power to frame and implement the Town Planning Scheme is delegated to Municipal Corporation for the area included in the territorial limits of the Corporation. Thus, for preparing Page 10 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and implementing the Town Planning Scheme, the power can be exercised only by the Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the section 68(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act provides for exercise of power of Corporation exercisable under any other law, to be exercised by the Municipal Corporation, subject to provisions of such law, i.e., The Town Planning Act. However, submitted the Ld. Advocate, the Town Planning Act does not provide for delegation of power of appropriate authority to any officer, and therefore, the power of summary eviction is not excisable by the Commissioner. It was submitted that in the instant case, the power of summary eviction has been exercised by the Assistant Estate Officer, who is subordinate to the Commissioner. It was urged that neither Corporation nor Commissioner has any authority or power to delegate the power of Appropriate Authority to the Assistant Estate Officer. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned order and the notices issued by Respondent No. 3 is without authority and jurisdiction.
7. The learned advocate, relying on the decision dated 13.11.2024 in the case of Writ Petition No. 295/2022,, i.e, Page 11 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said Writ Petition has held that right to shelter is a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was submitted that therefore, in the present case, the action of removing the shelter from the heads of the Petitioners, (citizens) is unconstitutional. It was also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Narasimha Murthy reported in 1995 (5) SCC 524 and in the case of Chameli Singh and others v. State of UP reported in 1996 (2) SCC 549 has also held that the right of residence is a fundamental right. The learned advocate has relied on paragraph 77 and 78 of the judgment in the case of Writ Petition No. 295/2022, decided by the Apex Court and had contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is unequivocally holding that the right to shelter is a fundamental right of the citizen.
8. Emphasizing the facts in the present matter, it was submitted that undisputedly, in the present case, the Town Planning Scheme had been finalised and it has come into Page 12 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined force since 09.01.1984. He submitted that under the Scheme, the original survey number 156 and 181 were renumbered as plot number 181 and 182, in lieu whereof, the final plot number 436 is allotted to original owners. Further, as per the sketch, overleaf the notice dated 19.04.2025, the land occupied by petitioners is stated to be marked for a 24 meter wide Town Planning Road and on that basis, the petitioners have been called upon to vacate and demolish their residential properties. That the proposal of TP Scheme, which came into force with effect from 09.01.1984, is sought be implemented in the year 2025, after a period of 41 years. It was submitted that such period cannot be stated to be a reasonable period and therefore such power cannot be exercised. It was also submitted that as per the sketch produced along with notice dated 19.04.2025, 24 m wide road is proposed as passing through a fully constructed area, which is not only illogical, but is contrary to the basic object of town planning, since implementation of such proposal would result in destruction of about a hundred properties and eviction of about 1000 people rendering them homeless Page 13 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and / or jobless, which is violative of fundamental right of life, including their right of residence.
9. It was submitted that as such, the petitioners are not encroachers and that the petitioners have purchased their respective plots by paying consideration and thereafter, have constructed their residences and properties for earning their livelihood. The petitioners, it was submitted, are entitled for alternative accommodation as per the policy of the State Government. It was also submitted that the surrounding area has been declared as Slum Clearance Area and even certain Redevelopment Schemes have been undertaken to accommodate the occupants of existing constructions in surrounding areas. But the petitioners have not given been given benefit of any Redevelopment Scheme, and therefore, the petitioners have been discriminated in respect of rehabilitation and resettlement of the occupants. This is more so when the petitioners are residing in these properties for more than 60 years and hence, there is all the more reason for them to be entitled to be allotted alternative accommodation. It was thus, urged that the Respondent authority may kindly be Page 14 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined directed to allot alternative land to the petitioners before implementing the impugned notice and order.
10. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader G. H. Virk appearing for the State and Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have vehemently urged the Court to reject the petition as lacking merits. Their submissions, overlapping on many aspects have been recorded collectively. It was submitted that the present scheme is progressively being implemented and that it is not unusual that such progressive Scheme takes about a decade or so for it to be implemented post its sanction. It was submitted that at present, a 24 m Road is what is sought to be constructed in terms of the finalised Town Planning Scheme, to which the petitioners are objecting. It was submitted that as such the petitioners have no right to object at this Stage for the reason that they have not objected to the Town Planning Scheme per se, till it was finalized. It was submitted that if it was the contention of the present petitioners that they are residing at the said plot since past 60 years, nothing prevented them from objecting to the scheme when it was in the process of Page 15 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined finalisation. It was submitted that there is no contention that the Scheme was approved without following due process. It was submitted that in terms of the applicable case law, being the case in Kanjibhai Dahyabhai Malsattar and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported at 2005 (2) GLR 1649, duly reiterated in the case of Liyakatbhai Usufbhai Sikarwala & Ors. Vs. Town Planning Officer & Ors., being the decision dated 18.02.2014, in Special Civil Application No.8479 of 1997, this Court has held that it is not possible to give individual notices to each resident of a vicinity when the Scheme is sought to be sanctioned. It was submitted that initially in a scheme, the alignment of plots gets settled and subsequently, the finances under the scheme are finalised. It was submitted that the petitioners' petition is bereft of any details, as to any objection taken to the framing notification or to the entire process of Town Planning Scheme and therefore relying on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court does not further their case. It was submitted that they have consciously not participated or challenged the Town Planning Scheme at any stage and today, with such advanced stage of the scheme, it has become irreversible situation. It was submitted that Page 16 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined therefore, balancing the public interest vis-a-vis, the individual interest, this Court may please lean in favour of the implementation of the Scheme, more so, when the Petitioners have not uttered a word of them having taken objections to the sanction of the Scheme at the stage of the final Sanction of the Scheme.
11. It was also submitted that in terms of the decisions of this Court, especially the one reported at 2009 SCC Online Gujarat 6413, being the decision in Vimlaben Ramsagar Mishra and another v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, it has been stated that once a Town Planning Scheme has become final under the provisions of the Act, and the fact that the Petitioners have not challenged such Town Planning Scheme, then at the stage of implementation of such Scheme under Section 68, read with rule 33, in absence of any challenge to the Town Planning Scheme, the consequences are inevitable and the persons who are in occupation of the land are required to handover, peaceful and vacant possession of the land. It was thus, submitted that the petitioners have no case and that the present petition may kindly be dismissed. In the same vein, Page 17 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined it was submitted are the decisions in the case of Varahi Cooperative Housing Society Limited V. State of Gujarat reported at 2018 SCC Online Gujarat 1416 and the decision in the case of Bhupendrabhai Mathurbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat being the decision in Special Civil Application Number 16287 of 2020. It was submitted that the present petition may kindly be dismissed.
12. It was submitted that in a similar fact situation, in the case of Ramanbhai Hargovind Das Limbachia v. State of Gujarat, being a judgment reported in 2016 (3) GLR 2695 :
2016 (2) GCD 1792, the Division Bench of this Court, concerning construction of 36 meter road, it was held that it was for the petitioner or even for the court to consider whether there was any justification of having 36 m road or otherwise. And that construction of such road or otherwise is best left to the wisdom of the expert body and the appropriate authority, considering the public interest. It was further held by the Hon'ble Court that objections could have been raised at the time before the sanctioning of the Draft Planning Scheme. But having not raised such objections by the persons who claim to be in possession Page 18 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined prior to the sanctioning, they could not possibly raise objections belatedly. And in so far as those who purchased / constructed land thereafter, they were stopped by section 41 from carrying out any development unless such persons have applied for and obtained the necessary permission for doing so from the appropriate authority.
13. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present writ petition in terms appearing hereinafter.
14. The issue which this Court is required to decide in the present proceedings is that whether the petitioners are entitled to have quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 21.05.2025 and the Notice dated 19.04.2025 issued by the respondent no.3 and to set-aside the entire exercise of evicting the petitioners and removing/demolishing their properties, situated on the land mentioned in the sketch overleaf the impugned Notice dated 19.04.2025?
Page 19 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
15. At the outset, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 needs to be examined. The said order specifically records that the approved scheme in question was approved on 29.11.1965, the preliminary scheme was approved on 12.12.1980, the final scheme was approved on 22.11.1983 and the date of implementation of the final scheme was 09.01.1984. The said fact remains uncontroverted.
16. Again, what is apparent is none of the petitioners have ever challenged the scheme at any of the aforesaid stages. It is only when they have been sought to be removed from possession under the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 that they have approached this Court.
17. It is their first contention that the Assistant Estate Officer, Paschim Zone-05, who has issued the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, does not have any power to implement the said scheme. It was their contention that he does not constitute to be a Municipal Corporation nor the Appropriate Authority, as defined under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, and that therefore, he could not have exercised the powers of a Municipal Corporation in terms of issuing the impugned communication under Page 20 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Section 68 of the Town Planning Act read with Rule 33 of the rules framed thereunder.
18. This Court believes that the said contention is baseless.
For the said purpose, firstly, the definition of the Appropriate Authority needs to be perused. In terms of Section 2(iii) of the Town Planning Act, the Appropriate Authority in relation to the development area has been defined to mean an Area Development Authority or an Urban Development Authority. Now, an Area Development Authority is an authority constituted under Section 5 of the Town Planning Act which includes, inter alia, a local authority, designated as such under Section 6(1) of the Town Planning Act. Again, Section 5(1) of the Town Planning Act provides for creation of an Area Development Authority for certain area, for carrying out functions assigned to an area development authority under the Act. Additionally, in terms of Section-6(2), such area development authority is to set up a Planning Committee consisting of members, as provided in that Section, and it shall have all the powers, responsibilities and status, as is Page 21 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined given to a Standing Committee, if any, appointed under the Act under which the Local Authority is constituted.
19. Again, the Local Authority referred to hereinabove means a Municipal Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as in force in the State of Gujarat or a Municipality constituted or deemed to be constituted under the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963 or a committee appointed for a notified area under the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963 or a Gram/Nagar Panchayat or deemed to be constituted under the Gujarat Panchayats Act.
20. Furthermore, the other limb of the Appropriate Authority, in terms of Section 2(iii) would be the Urban Development Authority, which is defined under Clause-2 (xxviii) of the Town Planning Act. The said Section-2(xxviii) provides that the Urban Development Authority would be the Urban Development Authority constituted under Section 22 of the Town Planning Act. The said Section, in turn, provides that on receipt of proposal from the Urban Development Authority or otherwise, the State Government may, by notification in official gazette, delegate any of the powers Page 22 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and functions of the Urban Development Authority to the local authority or the authorities or an officer within its jurisdiction.
21. Again, the impugned order, at internal page-2 states the following:
"નામદાર સરકારશ્રી દ્વારા મંજૂર કરાયેલ ટી.પી. સ્કીમની અમલીકરણ એજન્સી સમુચિત સત્તામંડળ તરીકે અમદાવાદ મ્યુનિસિપલ કોર્પોરેશન ના એસ્ટેટ વિભાગ દ્વારા કરવામાં આવેલ છે."
22. The closest English translation to the aforesaid is that the Town Planning Scheme approved by the Government has been implemented by the Estate Department of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as the Appropriate Authority.
23. At this juncture, Section-68 and 69 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation Act") provides as follows:
".....
68. Commissioner to exercise powers and perform duties of Corporation under other laws.- (1) Any powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Corporation by any other law for the time being in force shall, subject to the provisions of such law and to such Page 23 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined restrictions, limitations and conditions as the Corporation may impose, be exercised, performed or discharged by the Commissioner.
(2) The Commissioner may with the approval of the Standing Committee by order in writing, empower any municipal officer to exercise, perform or discharge any such power, duty or function under the control of the Commissioner and subject to his revision and to such conditions and limitations, if any, as he shall think fit to prescribe.
69. Municipal officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers, etc. of the Commissioner or the Transport Manager.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
sections (2) and (3) any of the powers, duties or functions [including powers, duties or functions of a judicial or a Quasi judicial nature], conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner or the Transport Manager by or under any of the provisions of the Act may be exercised, performed or discharged, under the control of the Commissioner or the Transport Manager, as the case may be, and subject to his revision and to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be prescribed by rules, or as he shall think fit to prescribe in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or rules, by any municipal officer whom the Commissioner or the Transport Manager generally or specially empowers by order in writing in this behalf; and to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered the word "Commissioner" and the words "Transport Manager" Page 24 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined occurring in any provision in this Act, shall be deemed to include such officer.
[Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to empower-
(i) the Commissioner or the Transport Manager to exercise control over, or
(ii) the State Government, the Corporation, the Commissioner or the Transport Manager to prescribe any conditions or limitations in regard to, the exercise, performance or discharge of powers, duties or functions of a judicial or Quasi-judicial nature, by a municipal officer under this sub-section.] (2) The Commissioner shall not, except with the prior approval of the Standing Committee, make an order under sub-section (1) affecting his powers, duties or functions under any of the following sections, sub-sections and clauses, namely:-
10(1)(h), 12(1), 18(1), 26(2), 43(2), 43(4), 43(5), 51(2), 67(3)
(b), 67(3)(c), 67(3)(d), 71(2), 73, 77, 78(1), 85, 86, 87, 90, 92(2), 94, 95, 121, 122, 125, 126, 130(1)(b), 131(1), 134, 137, 144, 152, 154, 160, 174, 176, 177, 188, 195, 196, 197, 201, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 220, 224, 232, 243, 268, 269, 270, 272(2), 273, 274, 275(1), 277, 278, 281, 298, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 310, 317, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 363, 364, 371(2), 373, 386(2), 439(3), 439(4), 441, 442, 445, 466, 481 except clause (a) of sub-section (1).
(3) The Transport Manager shall not except with the prior approval of the Transport Committee, make an order Page 25 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined under sub-section (1) affecting his powers, duties or functions under any of the following provisions, namely:-
43(5), 67(4)(b), 67 (4)(c), 71(2), 73, 97, 344, 346, 348, 354, 355, 356, 358, 362, 481 except clause (a) of sub-section (1)."
24. Thus, the Commissioner is empowered under sub-clause-
(1) of Section 68 to exercise, perform or discharge any powers, duties and functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Corporation, by any other law for the time being in force, subject to the provisions of such law and to such restrictions, limitations, and condition as the Corporation may impose. The Commissioner, in turn, under Sub-clause (2) of Section-68, by an order in writing and with approval of the Standing Committee, empower any Municipal Officer to exercise, perform, or discharge any such power, duty, or function under the control of the Corporation subject to his revision and to such conditions and limitations, as it shall think fit to prescribe. Broadly, under Section 69, the Commissioner's power per se, could also be permitted to be exercised by Municipal Officers. So much so that the Commissioner could not exercise control, nor could the Corporation etc. are to prescribe any Page 26 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined conditions or limitations in regard to the exercise, performance or discharge of powers.
25. At this juncture, the Office Order No.003731 dated 24.12.2018 may be perused. The same is of Office Order issued by the local authority i.e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The contents of the said Office Order are reproduced herein below for the ease of reference:
"Whereas A.M.C new west zone is devided in to North West zone & south west zone as per G.D.Est Letter No.2985 Dt.29.08.2018 St.Committee Res. No.595 Dt.29.08.2018 Municipal Corporation Res. No.769 Dt.26.09.2018.
Therefore, in continuation of all previous office orders & in exercise of powers vested in him under section-69 (1) of the G.P.M.C Act 1949 the Municipal commissioner of the city of Ahmedabad is pleased to delegate his powers & functions as mentioned as per annexure- A attached in column-B, in respect of the provisions of the Gujarat town planning & urban development act-1976. Mentioned in column-c to Municipal officers designated in column-d of the schedule attached herewith, in respect of the zone or wards put in his charge.
The Approval of Standing Committee as required under Sec. 69(2) of the G.P.M.C. Act-1949 is obtained previously vide standing Committee Resolution No.628 Page 27 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined dt.12.07.91 to delegate and said powers to the said officers."
26. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the Municipal Commissioner of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has in exercise of powers vested him under Section-69(1) of the Corporation Act, 1949 has been pleased to delegate its powers and functions as mentioned in the Annexures to the said Order. In respect of the provision of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 to the Municipal Officers stated in column-C of the Schedule of the said Order. Apparently, there is an effective delegation of the powers under Section 69(1) of the Corporation Act. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the Asst. Estate Officer could not have exercised powers to issue the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, is not sustainable.
27. The petitioners have relied on a number of authorities in respect of various contentions raised by them. One of the decisions is a decision dated 13.11.2024 in Writ Petition No. 295 of 2022, titled, IN RE Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structure passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said matter, grievance was on behalf of the various Page 28 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined citizens whose residential and commercial properties had been demolished by the State machinery, allegedly, without following due process of law on the grounds of them being involved as an accused qua criminal offences. In the said matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued certain directions, albeit, with a clarification that the directions will not be applicable if there was an unauthorised structure in any public place as such street, footpath, butting railway line or any river body or any water bodies and also to certain whether there is order of demolition made by the Court of Law. The directions, inter alia, provided that before such demolition, at least 15 days time (or a larger time provided by the local municipal laws) - Show Cause Notice be issued with a time computable from the date of such Notice. The Notice to be both served by the RPAD and be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure. A copy thereof by e-mail was also to be sent to the Collector/District-Magistrate of the district with an auto-generated reply acknowledging receipt of the e-mail by the concerned Collector/District Magistrate of the district. Furthermore, the directions provide for assigning of a digital portal, within 3 months from the date of the Page 29 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined judgment wherein details regarding service/affixing of the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available. Additionally, the notice was to mandated to contain the nature of the unauthorized construction, specific violation by the addressee and ground of demolition and the list of documents that the noticee is required to furnish along with its reply. A date of personal hearing is also required to be mentioned together with the designated authority who shall conduct such hearing. After the personal hearing, the minutes of the same shall be made available. The final order as has been mandated to contend the contents of the notice and the reasons if the designated authority disagrees with the same, where the unauthorized construction is compoundable and if not the reasons thereon. Again, if the authorities find that only part of the construction is unauthorized or non-compoundable then the order is to reflect the details thereon and why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available, along with the reasons as to why the partial demolition or compounding are not feasible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also provides for an opportunity of an appeal in judicial scrutiny of the Page 30 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined final order and lastly that the demolition shall be videographed etc.
28. In the present case before this Court, however, there is Show Cause Notice and a personal hearing has been granted to the petitioners, and therefore, there being any breach of the directions in the aforesaid matter does not arise. In any case, the proposed demolition is not for the reason of the petitioners being involved in criminal offence but for the account of the petitioners' properly falling on the T.P. Road. Hence, the said judgment is of no aid to the petitioners.
29. The next judgment relied upon by the petitioner is Rajendra Kumar Barjatya vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad decided on 17.12.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at MANU/SC/1351/2024: AIR 2025 SC
259. It may be noted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the case where the structures were erected in complete violation of the nature of permission as regards its usage, namely, that instead of the residential usage, the premises constructed were of commercial usage. Not only that, the commercial shops so Page 31 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined constructed, had been transferred to various individuals. It appears that in those proceedings, certain officers of the Corporation were hand in glove with the transgressors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was highly critical of not only the initial construction but even the purchaser of such construction who, admittedly were the writ petitioners, alleging that they are most affected parties. It was held that the purchasers were required to make sufficient enquiries before effecting purchase of an immovable property. The provision under Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Properties Act was also relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reiterate that when a buyer, with ordinary care, is not able to ascertain material defect in the property, or in the seller title, it becomes the duty of the seller to disclose the same, though it is the primary responsibility of the buyer to ascertain defects in the property and its title. In view of the overall circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue certain directions, over and above, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in IN RE Direction in the matter of demolition of structure. The additional directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (supra) were as follows: Page 32 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined "(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.
(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential/commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out, are completely rectified.
(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider/Board to the buildings Page 33 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.
(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate deviation/violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority builder/owner/occupant; and the official, who is responsible for against concerned, in accordance with law, the issuance of wrongful completion/occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.
(vi) No permission/licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.
(ix) in the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of Page 34 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.
(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal/Courts relating to house/building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be Issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be Scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as perlaw
(xi) Banks/financial institutions shall sanction loan against any a security only after verifying the building on a building as completion/occupation certificate issued to production of the same by the parties concerned.
(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws."
30. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to affirm the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, with a direction that the appellants (the current owners/third party to the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court) shall hand over Page 35 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the premises to the respondent authorities who shall take efforts to demolish the unauthorized construction within a period of two weeks therefrom.
31. As is apparent, even this authority is of no aid to the petitioners, as it was rendered in a different factual background.
32. In Jasbirsingh Didaarsingh Whala vs State Of Gujarat and Ors., being the judgment rendered in the case of R/Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2024, the issue was whether power of Sections 36 and 37 of the Town Planning Act could be pressed for removing unauthorized structure? There, instead of statutory notice period of 15 days, only a period of 7 days was granted. The Hon'ble Single Judge, considering that the petitioners had not produced any document regarding his title, and that the construction was contrary to permission, held that the petitioner was in breach of conditions imposed by Authority. Even the "show room" put up, amounting to commercial use, was contrary to construction permission by the Authority. Thus, it was held that the petitioner had no valid right. Page 36 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
33. In such circumstances, the contention that the Corporation had committed certain folly in taking action, was not upheld. However, looking to the issue in the present matter, the facts being drastically different, the authority does not help the case of the present petitioners.
34. Again, in R/Special Civil Application No.14454 of 2016 and allied matters, decided on 25.11.2022, this Court, considering that the petitioners did not have valid title, the Court did not grant any prayer against impugned Notice of Section 68 and Rule 33 of the Act. This decision thus aids the respondent as the petitioners have merely Agreement to Sell, as has been specifically averred in the present petition.
35. In Ramanbhai Hargovindbhai Limbachiya Vs. State of Gujarat, the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat was dealing with the issue that once a Draft Town Planning Scheme is approved, but the consequent Preliminary Town Planning Scheme was refused to be given a sanction, whether the whole gamut is to be started from the beginning or whether the scheme continued at the stage of draft Planning Scheme. There, the challenge was to the Page 37 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined implementation of the said Scheme under Section 48A, 67 and 68 of the Town Planning Act, more particularly, in respect of eviction of 36 meters Scheme Road. Apparently, the draft Scheme sanctioned was under Section 48 of the Town Planning Act. The Court relied on Section 48(A) to hold that consequent to the draft scheme being sanctioned by the State Government, all lands required by the Appropriate Authority for the purposes specified in Clause
(c), (f), (g) or (h) of Section 40(3) shall vest absolutely in appropriate authority, free from all cumbrances. Ultimately, the Court relied on Section 49 pertaining to restriction of usage of development of land after declaration of the scheme that before draft Planning Scheme none of the petitioner had objected. It was held that those who were perused it to the sanction of the draft Planning Scheme did not have valid titled that land in question had vested absolutely with appropriate authority for implementing the Town Planning Scheme. Again, those who had titled prior thereto, were estopped from contending otherwise as they had not raised any objection at the time when objections were invited in respect of the Town Planning Scheme.
Page 38 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
36. Thus, the crux is that once the draft Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned, in terms of Section 48(A), the lands vest in the appropriate authority and that no development in such area could be made unless such person have applied for and obtained necessary permission from the appropriate authority.
37. On perusal of the petition, it appears that none of the petitioners have procured any permission as required under Section 49 of the Town Planning Act. Therefore, their contention that they have purchased ( sic, under Agreement to Sell and not by an Conclusive Sale) the said land and that they have Agreement to Sell is of no aid to the said petitioners.
38. Lastly, the petitioners appear to be contending that their right to have alternative accommodation. It appears that the said issue has been kept open in the impugned Notice. The specific clause, reads as follows:
"પરંતુ સદરહું જગ્યાના અસરગ્રસ્તો ઘણા વર્ષોથી આ જ જગ્યાએ વસવાટ કરતા હોય તથા આવાસો ફાળવવા અંગે તેઓની રજૂઆત અંગે સદરહું અસરગ્રસ્તોને પ્રોજેક્ટ અફેકટેડ ગણવા બાબતે સક્ષમ સત્તાના નિર્ણયાનુસાર આગળની આનુષંગિક કાર્યવાહી હાથ ધરવાની થાય."Page 39 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
39. The closest English translation of the aforesaid clause is that that as the affected persons are staying there for so many years and for allocating alternative accommodation in terms of their representation, further incidental proceedings shall be conducted in terms of the decision (sic., that may be taken) of the competent authority for holding them "Project Affected". Thus, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authority for inviting decision of the competent authority in this respect.
40. To conclude, the Town Planning Scheme has become final, it having reached upto the stage of implementation way back in Year-1989. That there was no challenge at any point in time by the present petitioners to the said Scheme. Indeed, the petitioners have stated that none of them have received any notice up till the finalization and implementation of the Scheme. However, the judgment in the case of Kanjibhai (supra) and Liyakatbhai (supra) categorically hold that it is not possible to give notices to individuals to each residence of a vicinity when a Scheme is sought to be sanctioned and, therefore, on that count also, the petitioners drawn no success.
Page 40 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
41. In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the petitioners are required to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession as called for in the impugned communication.
42. The petitioners shall, however, at liberty to make appropriate application for availing the alternative accommodation to the competent authority as provided in the impugned communication dated 21.05.2025. The present petition thus being devoid of merits is liable to be disposed of, as rejected, subject to the aforesaid liberty reserved to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, as rejected.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) JIGAR J RABARI Page 41 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7357/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined FURTHER ORDERS:
After this Judgment was pronounced, learned advocate Mr. Priyank Pandya, appearing for the petitioners, has requested for stay of the operation of this Judgment to enable his clients to approach the higher forum.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the operation of this Judgment is stayed for a period of two weeks.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) JIGAR J RABARI Page 42 of 42 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 23:24:37 IST 2025