Gujarat High Court
Bapunagar Morarjichowk Hitrakshak ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 March, 2022
Author: A. J. Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.50 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO.1 of 2016
In
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.50 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO.1 of 2021
In
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.50 of 2015
=========================================
BAPUNAGAR MORARJICHOWK HITRAKSHAK SAMITI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 others ========================================= Appearance :
MR MTM HAKIM for the Petitioner.
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ASSISTED BY MR VINAY B. VISHEN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent No.1. MR R R MARSHALL, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR RITURAJ M MEENA for the Opponent No.2.
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA for the Opponent No.3. MR. MN MARFATIA for the Opponent No.4.
========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 23/03/2022 CAV ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI)
1. By way of the present petition filed in the nature of public interest litigation, under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who had applied for the registration as a Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 has prayed as under :-
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned advertisement dated 27.9.2014, Notice inviting tender dated 20.10.2014 and proposed construction of the Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 residential units in and around open space / playground popularly known as "Morarji Chowk"
i.e. land part of Survey No.260, 261/4 and 261/7 in Town Planning Scheme No.11 of Old Bapunagar, situated within the Ahmedabad city and area of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the actions of the respondents of non-response to the Representations dated 13.10.2014, 21.10.2014 and 18.12.2014 made by the petitioner.
(C) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the impugned advertisement dated 27.09.2014, notice inviting tender dated 20.10.2014 and proposed construction of the residential units in and around open space / playground popularly known as "Morarji Chowk" i.e. land part of Survey No.260, 261/4 and 261/7 in Town Planning Scheme No.11 of Old Bapunagar, situated within the Ahmedabad city and area of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
(D) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reply to the representations dated 13.10.2014, 21.10.2014 and 18.12.2014 made by the Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 petitioner."
2. By an oral order dated 13.3.2015, notice was issued to the respondents. State of Gujarat - respondent No.1, Gujarat Housing Board - respondent No.2 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - respondent No.3 were initially joined as parties. Thereafter, one Rhythm Infrastructure Private Limited was joined as respondent No.4 pursuant to an order dated 20.5.2016 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court.
3. The case put forward by the petitioner for filing the present Public Interest Litigation is to restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from putting construction over the land popularly known as "Morarji Chowk" i.e. land part of Survey No.260, 261/4 and 261/7 on the ground that the residents of surrounding area are using the land for various types of public activities since 4 to 5 decades and the respondents have no legal authority to put up any construction as the land is referred as playground since the year 1954 i.e. when the land was given to respondent No.2 - Gujarat Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'GHB') which was established to provide houses and other amenities at lower rate for the weaker section and/or lower income group section of the society and was also kept as playground in Town Planning Scheme No.11 of Old Bapunagar, situated within the Ahmedabad city and area of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, GHB through its Executive Engineer filed affidavit-in-reply on 17.8.2015 denying the contentions raised by the petitioner. Additional affidavit dated 16.3.2016 was also filed by GHB. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the aforesaid two affidavits on 4.6.2016.
Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022
5. The respondent No.4 who was given contract / tender for construction of the houses for underprivileged filed affidavit-in- reply on 6.6.2016 and opposed the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. To the said affidavit-in-reply, rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 7.6.2016.
6. The Chief Town Planner of Gujarat State on behalf of the State of Gujarat i.e. respondent No.1 filed affidavit-in-reply dated 18.6.2016 whereas affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - respondent No.2 on 24.6.2016. Rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid affidavits on 23.11.2016. Again, additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of GHB clarifying certain aspects with regard to the ownership of the land in question along with the documents on 7.2.2020. Lastly, affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Land Records of Ahmedabad on behalf of State of Gujarat clarifying certain factual aspects. However, though respondents have clarified certain factual aspects, the petitioner has neither amended the present petition nor challenged the decisions of the respondent authorities which has come on record way back in the year 2016 and thereafter in the year 2020.
7. Since the terms and conditions of the work contract entered into between GHB and respondent No.4 could not be fulfilled, an amount of Rs.71,92,809/- was paid by GHB by way of compensation to respondent No.4 in the year 2019 by Resolution No.1273 under Agenda No.8 on 24.9.2019.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition, an application being Civil Application No.1 of 2021 came to be filed by GHB Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 narrating the change of circumstances with regard to request received from Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city to allot the land in question for construction of Police Quarters, temporary barracks, parade ground, open plot for Rathyatra, election and temporary residences for police forces coming from other Districts and requested this Court to modify the interim relief which was granted by learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Civil Application No.4537 of 2016 (now re-numbered as Civil Application No.1 of 2016) preferred in the summer vacation by which several directions were issued and the respondents were directed not to create any irreversible situation over the land in question. The said application is also tagged along with the present writ petition for final disposal. The original petitioner has not filed any affidavit-in-reply in Civil Application No.1 of 2021 filed by GHB.
9. Since the present writ petition is pending and interim relief is in operation since 2016, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
10. The facts emerged from the record are as under :-
10.1 That Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 was enacted to take such measures, to make such Schemes and to carry out such works as are necessary for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need of housing accommodation and with that object in view, it is necessary to establish a Board and to make certain other provisions and for the same, lands were allotted to GHB under the said Act for providing housing accommodation to the lower income group, middle income group etc. Since the city of Ahmedabad is part of the then Maharashtra State, the Board Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 established under the said Act was granted huge land in different surrounding areas of city of Ahmedabad which was not at all developed in the year 1954. The Housing Board put up certain Schemes under the aforesaid Act in the area where the land in question is located. The land in question admeasures around 10,508 Sq. Mts. Though constructions were made surrounding this land, GHB did not put any construction having found no reason to use for the same for years together. However, in the year 1989, when GHB, at the request of Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad city, declared construction of residential scheme of Police Quarters, Civil Suit No.4856 of 1989 was filed by one Jamil Ahmed J. Shaikh, President of Charitable Institution known as "Gunch-e-
Adab" in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for declaration and permanent injunction. Affidavit-in-replies were filed by GHB and defendant of that suit. However, ultimately, GHB declared that at that stage, there was no intention on the part of GHB to construct any quarters. Accordingly, the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff of that suit who was owner of a house in the surrounding area.
10.2 GHB published an advertisement in the newspapers on 20.10.2014 inviting tenders for constructing houses in State of Gujarat including the land in question. It was declared that the Board intends to construct Low Income Group - 1 (LIG-1), Minimum Income Group - 1 (MIG-1) of 167 Flats of two bed-rooms hall kitchen and three bed-rooms hall kitchen at affordable price. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the work order was given to respondent No.4 for constructing the houses as per the advertisement. However, because of the resistance of the local residents, GHB received a notice for damages and ultimately, the construction could not be proceeded further and has not Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 progressed further till date in view of the order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Civil Application No.4537 of 2016. The case put forward by the petitioner is that the land in question is shown as playground from the beginning, however, subsequent to making representation, the authorities have tried to correct the records to see that the residents of the area are deprived of using the land in question for various purpose which is being used since decades.
11. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by taking us through the map (Annexure A to the petition) which is prepared by Town Planning Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation with regard to Town Planning Scheme No.1 would submit that the land in question is shown as playground. Even by taking us through the lay-out plan issued by GHB showing 5008 tenements (Rakhial) at Bapunagar, Ahmedabad Town Planning Scheme No.11, the land in question is shown as playground as well as given for Labour Welfare Board. He, therefore, would submit that the land in question is earmarked and reserved for playground and is not of the ownership of GHB and, therefore, the say of GHB that GHB is the owner of the land in question and can deal with the same cannot be accepted. By taking us through Section 24 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1948 which is applicable to the land in question, he would submit that GHB who floated several residential schemes in past is supposed to make provisions for parks, playing-fields and open space for the benefit of any area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area, and the enlargement of existing parks, playing-fields, open spaces and approaches and, therefore, when other Schemes were floated in past, this plot was earmarked as playground. Therefore, the respondent authority now cannot construct or provide any residential premises which would deprive the residents of nearby Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 area who are using the land in question as playground for nearby five schools for social gathering, Flag hoisting etc. He would further submit that as per Section 38 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1948, particularly, sub-Section (2) of Section 38, when any open space for purposes of ventilation or recreation has been provided by the Board in executing any housing scheme, the land would vest in the local authority i.e. in the present case with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and GHB has no authority to float any Housing Scheme as desired at the instance of Police Commissioner for the City of Ahmedabad in recent past.
11.1 Mr. Hakim would further submit that with regard to the land in question, Civil Suit No.4856 of 1989 was filed in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad with similar type of prayers. The GHB filed its written statement and stated that the land in question was transferred to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as per the minutes drawn in the meeting held way back on 21.3.1963 and, therefore, neither the Corporation nor GHB can now state contrary to what was stated on oath before the City Civil Court way back in the year 1989. He has taken us through the written statement dated 4.10.1989 of GHB filed in the suit and produced along with the petition, particularly, paragraph 9 (d). He would submit that the land in question was given to Gujarat Labour Welfare Board on rent basis and the written statement filed by Gujarat Labour Welfare Board wherein it has been categorically stated that the land in question is being used for playground since long time for nearby residents. The Gujarat Labour Welfare Board has also stated in its written statement that if any construction is permitted, common plot in question be kept open for the cultural activities in the interest of general public of that area. He would further submit that as and when public notice was issued with regard to putting Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 up construction of Lower Income Class Group II and Middle Income Group 1 upon the land in question, a detailed representation has been made stating all these aspects. However, evasive reply was given by GHB that some mistakes were committed showing the land in question as playground and in fact, the authorities with malafide intention started taking steps to correct the so-called mistake committed in the revenue records, Town Planning Scheme etc. and hence, the so-called correction has been made only after filing of the petition and by that, the respondent authority jointly are trying to deprive the residents of surrounding area to use an open place which was used as a playground for various activities. He, therefore, would submit that the petition may accordingly be allowed and appropriate writ may be issued by directing the respondents not to put up any construction upon the land in question.
12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. R. Marshall appearing with Mr. Rituraj Meena appearing for respondent No.2 - GHB has vehemently opposed this petition and would submit that there is no interest whatsoever of public at large on the ground that the land in question belonged to GHB was being used for various activities. He would further submit that the land in question is not reserved as open land or playground. At the relevant point of time i.e. in the initial days of GHB in the year 1954, the population for the city of Ahmedabad was much less in comparison to today and, therefore, the requirement of land and houses were much less as compared to today. Though the land was never reserved to be kept as open land / playground, he would submit that GHB is the sole owner of the land in question and the land in question were neither transferred to any local body or organization i.e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the same Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 is not reserved for any specific purpose and, therefore, the use of the aforesaid lands is at sole discretion of GHB. He would further submit that the Scheme floated by GHB like Flats / residential premises only are allotted to the residents of surrounding areas including the members of the affected persons of the petitioner Trust but the lands are owned by GHB and GHB can take decision in public interest for usage of such lands. He would further submit that since the city of Ahmedabad is expanded multi-fold in comparison to the size of the city 60 years back and accordingly, population of city has also increased number of times and hence, there is a need of making available houses at reasonable cost and, therefore, advertisement was issued in the year 2014 and that too as per the "Mukhya Mantri Gruh Yojana" (Chief Minister House Scheme). He would further submit that since the prices of the lands in the city at Ahmedabad has reached beyond one's imagination, the GHB had decided to offer two and three bed- rooms houses at more than reasonable cost i.e. Rs.11 Lacs for two bed-rooms and Rs.18 Lacs for three bed-rooms. He would further submit that it would have been a dream house for lower and/or middle class public of city of Ahmedabad.
12.1 Mr. Marshall would further submit that GHB had to drop the Scheme and had to pay damages to the tune of Rs.71,92,809/- for the same to the Contractor to whom work order was given to develop the land. However, GHB has received a request from Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad to grant the land for constructing accommodations for police personnel. He would further submit that by communication dated 16.9.2020, Joint Police Commissioner (Administration), City of Ahmedabad has addressed a letter to GHB requesting the Board to allot the land for constructing police quarters, temporary barracks, parade ground Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 etc. It has been specifically stated by the Police Commissioner that the area in which the land in question is located is within Rakhial Police Station which is thickly populated and a sensitive area and, therefore, for immediate control, establishment of police line and SRP barracks are required and there is no other land in the said area. This aspect is under consideration and hence, an appropriate decision shall be taken herein after.
12.2 Mr. Marshall would further submit that there might be some reference in the map or in some other proceedings showing the land as playground, but was never earmarked as playground in any documents whatsoever and no such document has come on record. In fact, mistakes have been corrected by the authority like Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. By communication dated 20.6.2015, AUDA has informed Town Planning Officer of State of Gujarat that the land in question falls under residential zone (R-1). However, in development based map, the same has been shown as playground and since the land belongs to GHB, the same has been treated as non-planning area and no final plot has been given to aforesaid Survey Number. Therefore, it cannot be kept for playground and by mistake, playground word is used in the maps and accordingly, the same was forwarded to authority. Similar is the letter dated 8.7.2020 issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and has declared that the land in question has not been vested in AMC and by mistake, 'PG' (playground) word was used and the same shall be deleted and the land in question shall be treated as residential zone. He, therefore, would submit that therefore, the petitioner cannot take disadvantage of some mistake committed in past which have now been corrected. He would further submit that none of the authorities like AMC, AUDA or State of Gujarat have claimed ownership over the land in Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 question and, therefore, GHB is empowered to deal with its land in accordance with the Bombay Housing Board Act.
12.3 Mr. Marshall by relying upon Section 123 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976, would further submit that there cannot be any development plan or Town Planning Scheme for any area for which a Housing Scheme has been sanctioned under the provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. Therefore, being the owner of the property, no authority can cover the lands in question under any Town Planning Scheme.
13. Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vinay B. Vishen appearing for the respondent No.1
- State of Gujarat would submit that Chief Town Planner of State of Gujarat has filed its affidavit and has made things clear about the land in question. He would submit that the lands in question shown in yellow colour are falling in residential zone as per Sub- Rule (v) of Rule 17 of the Bombay Rules. He would further submit that though in the map annexed to the affidavit, the word "PG" (playground) has been referred, the said mistake has been corrected by the authority and the word "PG" is finally deleted and the land in question can be used only for residential purposes and the GHB being its owner can be permitted to use the lands in question for residential purposes. He would submit that all these facts have been brought on the record of the present petition, however, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the said decision of correcting the mistakes i.e. deleting the word "PG" as referred in various documents nor has challenged the say of AMC that the lands in question never vested with the Corporation nor the say of all the authorities that GHB is the owner of the property and can deal with the same in accordance with law.
Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 13.1 Mr. Trivedi would further submit that the lands in question are required by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city for constructing residential premises for police personnel etc. which has been brought on the record of this petition by GHB. He, therefore, would submit that the present petition may be dismissed.
14. Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, by taking us through the affidavit filed by the Corporation, would submit that the Corporation does not claim any right, title or interest over the lands in question. On the contrary, the word "P.G." (playground) is deleted with its consent and GHB is sole owner of the property and can deal with its lands in accordance with law. He, therefore, would submit that the petition may be dismissed.
15. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have not cited any decisions in support of their submissions. Further, it is required to mention herein that except the prayers prayed for by the petitioner reproduced herein above, no other prayers have been made and/or amended by the petitioner.
16. The say of the petitioner is that the lands in question have vested with the Corporation now cannot be accepted in view of the declaration by the Corporation itself and corrections made accordingly i.e. removing the word "playground" from all records and treating the lands as under the residential zone. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 24 of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, the GHB is supposed to make provision for parks, playing-fields and open space for the benefit of any area Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area, and the enlargement of existing parks, playing-fields, open spaces and approaches. Section 24 (j) of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 reads as under :-
"24 (j) the provision of parks, playing-fields and open space for the benefit of any area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area, and the enlargement of existing parks, playing-fields, open spaces and approaches;"
17. It is expected from the GHB that it may provide for parks, playing-fields and open space for the benefit of any area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area, and the enlargement of existing parks, playing-fields, open spaces and approaches etc. but it is not mandatory for GHB to provide parks, playing-fields etc. However, the map produced by the petitioner with regard to the area where the residents - affected persons of the petitioner Trust are residing in the nearby area, there is recreation ground, garden and another recreation ground available in the near vicinity which can be used by them. As seen from the Register maintained by the Registrar of lands acquired by the Public Works Department in the Ahmedabad District, in the year 1952, the land was acquired for Gujarat Housing Board Scheme at Rakhial, Ahmedabad since the ownership of the lands of GHB, it cannot be covered under any Town Planning Scheme as provided under Section 123 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. However, while internal planning of GHB itself shows that the lands in question were reflected as playground and accordingly, it was reflected in the development plan which was a mistake and required to be corrected and accordingly, a Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 request was accepted by AUDA (since the lands in question are part of AUDA) and as per Resolution No.9 dated 26.2.2015, the same was corrected and the word "PG" was deleted. Accordingly, AUDA wrote a letter to the Chief Town Planner of State of Gujarat by communication dated 20.6.2015 clarifying the above aspect and has categorically stated that through oversight, the word "P.G." was used in the development plan, however, the lands in question belonged to GHB. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who in turn by his communication dated 8.7.2015 addressed to the Secretary, Urban Housing & Urban Development Department accepting the mistake committed in the record and also categorically stated that the lands in question belonged to GHB and it should be treated as residential zone (R-1). These corrections have been made way back in the year 2015 and the same is brought on the record of the present petition by filing affidavits way back in the year 2016. However, there is no challenge about illegality and validity of such corrections made by the authorities declaring GHB as the sole owner of the lands in question. Therefore, we are of the opinion that under the provisions of Bombay Housing Board Act, the GHB can float the Scheme in accodance with the provisions of the Act of 1961 and proceed with the request made by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city for allotting the lands in question for the purpose of establishing residential quarters, SRP barracks, parade ground etc.
18. As far as the emphasis of the petitioner in paragraph 9
(d) of the written statement filed by GHB in Civil Suit No.4856 of 1989 is concerned, some minutes were drawn in the meeting, however, there is no document whatsoever that the lands in question have ever vested with the Corporation and when there is Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022 no dispute raised by the Corporation itself claiming any right over the land, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted that different stand has been taken by GHB in the present proceedings.
19. Now dealing with the interest claimed on behalf of the petitioner for residents of nearby area, it appears that the open land might have been used occasionally by those persons but the need of the day is to provide the land for constructing houses for Police personnel and for other similar purposes and the fact that GHB is supposed to undertake the Scheme in accordance with the law, being the owner of the lands in question, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition which is filed in the nature of public interest litigation by issuing any other directions, particularly as stated herein above, when in the same area other recreation grounds and gardens are available and the students of the nearby Schools are already using the same and it cannot be treated that the same is in the interest of public at large. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier by learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Civil Application No.4537 of 2016 (now re-numbered as Civil Application No.1 of 2016) is hereby vacated forthwith.
In view of dismissal of main petition, connected applications also stand dismissed.
(A. J. DESAI, J) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/50/2015 CAV ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022
20. Upon pronouncement of this order, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has requested to extend the interim relief which was granted by learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Civil Application No.4537 of 2016 (now re- numbered as Civil Application No.1 of 2016). On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena appearing for GHB and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 have opposed such request.
21. Considering the fact that request received from Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city to allot the land in question for construction of Police Quarters, temporary barracks, parade ground etc. is pending at initial stage, we pass the following order :-
The respondents may proceed further with the request / proposal received from Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city to allot the land in question for construction of Police Quarters, temporary barracks, parade ground etc., however, shall not put up any construction on the land in question for a period of six weeks hereinafter.
(A. J. DESAI, J) (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) SAVARIYA Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 23 22:02:46 IST 2022