Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Chetandas Peswani vs State Of Gujarat on 21 October, 2020
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/11638/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11638 of 2020
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI CHETANDAS PESWANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JITEN H AHUJA(7739) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAINISH P SHAH(7033) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.ASMITA PATEL, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 21/10/2020
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Jainish Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent No.1- State.
1.1 Though served with the notice of this Court, respondent No.2 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and respondent No.3- Assistant Estate Officer, West Zone, AMC have chosen not to appear.
2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 24.8.2020 passed by the respondent No.3, Assistant Estate Officer, West Zone, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, along with notice dated 13.1.2020. It is further prayed to restrain the respondent authorities from evicting the petitioner from the property named and styled as R. K. Pan Corner and Electrical which is a premises on survey No.110, sub-plot Nos.4 to 9 and Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 24 00:12:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/11638/2020 ORDER now part of original plot No.37/A of the Town Planning Scheme No.23 (Sabarmati) having house/ sketch No.124.
2.1 An alternative prayer is made seeking direction against the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner an alternative premises.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the occupant and runs his business in the name of R. K. Pan Corner and Electrical at the premises described above. It is the case that since several years, the petitioner has been in occupation and has been in continuous possession. What is produced on record in fortification of the case of long occupation is the certificate issued by the Corporation under the Shops and Establishment ct, 1948, recent electricity bills of 2019 and only the recent property tax bill of the Corporation of June, 2019.
3.1 Notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 13.1.2020 under Section 68 of the Town Planning Act, read with Rule 33 of the Town Planning Rules. The petitioner was called upon thereby to vacate the premises. The land in question is proposed to be utilized in the Town Planning Scheme for the purpose of building a Social Centre and for laying the road, as stated in the notice dated 24.8.2008 itself. As the said notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation on 22.1.2020. However, the impugned notice dated 24.8.2020 came to be issued by the competent authority.
3.2 It is not in dispute, rather admitted by the petitioner himself that the place occupied by the petitioner bearing original survey No.110 has been subjected to the proposals of the Town Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 24 00:12:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/11638/2020 ORDER Planning Scheme No.23, (Sabarmati. Original plot No.37/A has been carved out comprising of the said land. The petitioner is allotted his final plot. The proposals of the scheme under Section 65(1) of the Gujarat Town Planning Act and Urban Development Act, 1976 were sanctioned as back as on 22.11.1983. It is the petitioner's own say that the Town Planning Scheme has already come into force from 9.1.1984.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been occupying the place since long, either compensation or an alternative place should have been offered to the petitioner. He submitted that the representation dated 22.1.2020 was made by the petitioner to the authorities, particularly, respondent No.3 but the same is not considered and the petitioner is sought to be evicted by the impugned notice.
4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that once the Town Planning Scheme is finalized, it becomes part of the Act and no rights survive for the owner/occupant except as may be provided under the provisions of the Act.
5. As noted above, the Town Planning Scheme has been finalized long back on 22.11.1983 and the same has came into force from the year 9.1.1984. It is trite principle propounded by this Court in several decisions that there should not be delay in implementing the proposals of the Town Planning Scheme since the scheme is intended for development of the area at large and for betterment of the society in general.
Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 24 00:12:26 IST 2020 C/SCA/11638/2020 ORDER5.1 It is pursuant to finalized Town Planning Scheme that the notice to the petitioner is issued. The land occupied by the petitioner is part of the Scheme. No right is available to the petitioner to get the said notice set aside. The rights of the petitioner in respect of the land stands extinguished and the land vested in the State Government to be utilized as per the proposals in the Scheme by the Area Development Authority.
6. In the aforesaid view, as no rights are enforceable by the petitioner in respect of the premises he is occupying except in accordance with law and as per the proposals of the Town Planning Scheme and the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning At, 1976, the petition stands meritless. As far as the alternative prayer of granting the petitioner the alternative premise/compensation is concerned, the petitioner may make fresh representation with necessary details in accordance with the policy in that regard to be decided on its own merits. Such representation may be made within six weeks from today 6.1 This court does not express anything on the merits of the representation which may be made by the petitioner as above.
Subject to the above limited observations, this petition is not entertained for the prayers made therein and stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) MARY VADAKKAN/ Manshi Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 24 00:12:26 IST 2020