Gujarat High Court
Ankit Sunilbhai Satta vs Gujarat Housing Board on 23 April, 2024
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3701 of 2024
==========================================================
ANKIT SUNILBHAI SATTA
Versus
GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHAUHAN DHWANIKA RAJESHBHAI(14066) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH M CHAUHAN(2470) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM(9051) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.
2. By way of present petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
(B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other writ upon the respondent authority to quash and set aside notice dt 7/2/2024 issued by respondent authority (Gujarat Housing Board);
(C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordship be pleased to stay the impugned notice dt 7/2/2024 issued by respondent authority (Gujarat Housing Authority);Page 1 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined (D) Be pleased to pass such other/further orders deemed fit."
3. Heard Mr. Rajesh M. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G.H. Virk, learned advocate appearing on caveat for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam for respondent No.2.
4. The petitioner herein has challenged the Notice dated 07.02.2024 issued by the respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to evict the premises House No. 20 of Block No.2 L.I.G. Patrakar Colony, Pragati Nagar, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, though, Civil Suit No.1270 of 2020 & Civil Suit No. 997 of 2020 are pending before the competent Civil Court.
5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:
5.1 The respondent No.2 namely Devangbhai Ananataray Sata filed Civil Suit No. 997 of 2020 against the present petitioner for cancellation of gift deed of property for survey No.229, T.P. Scheme 29 and Final Plot No.77 of L.I.G. Scheme, Gujarat Housing Board, Block No.2 of Flat No.18 (for short 'subject premises'). The learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed an order dated 21.10.2022 and directed the parties to maintain status quo till the final disposal of the suit.
5.2 The respondent No.1 has issued Notice on 07.02.2024 for eviction of the present petitioner from exclusive and legal possession and ownership of the subject premises under the scheme of redevelopment under Section 60(A)(2) of the Page 2 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by the impugned action undertaken by the respondent No.1, the petitioner herein has approached this Court.
6. Mr. Rajesh M. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that pending the civil suit, it was not open for the respondent No.1 to issue Notice dated 07.02.2024 under the scheme of redevelopment under Section 60(A)(2) of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. It was submitted that the respondent No.1 herein is a party to the civil suit proceedings and in view thereof, such Notice violating the rights of the petitioner wherein, the respondent No.2 has instituted a Civil Suit challenging the gift deed, the civil rights of the parties to be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court and in view thereof, the impugned action initiated by the respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside.
7. Mr. G.H. Virk, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent - authority and submitted that the present petition is filed by one of the beneficiary of the redevelopment in a Scheme (24 L.I.G. Patrakar Colony - 2) which has total 24 beneficiaries. In all, consents for redevelopment has been given by 20 out of the 24 beneficiaries. As on date, the respondent No.1 has received consents of 83.33% beneficiaries i.e. more than 75% as prescribed under the Redevelopment Guidelines for Public Housing Projects, 2016. It was submitted that a solitary member cannot be permitted to stall the redevelopment for the private disputes pending between the parties. It was submitted that on 16.03.2023, the Page 3 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined Association itself addressed a letter to the Gujarat Housing Board - respondent No.1 herein along with the relevant documents including the Resolution of the members of the society to partake in redevelopment. It was submitted that the Jurisdictional Estate Manager of the Gujarat Housing Board independently verified the consents of the members and found that 20 members had consented for the redevelopment.
7.1 Mr. Virk, learned advocate, submitted that as the Association itself had requested for redevelopment of the old and dilapidated structures, the Gujarat Housing Board -
respondent No.1 herein invited bids by way of an online invitation to Tender published on 03.08.2023. Three bids were received and one successful bid by Bhumi Procon Private Limited was accepted and the said bidder was awarded the Letter of Intent (LOI) on 27.10.2023. A detailed lay-out plan for redevelopment was thereafter, approved by the Association on 26.12.2023. It was submitted that a Tri-Partite Agreement for redevelopment was thereafter, executed on 02.01.2024. It was submitted that 4 non-consent members, out of which 2 members, (i.e. occupiers of 2 units is the petitioner himself) were issued Notices under Section 60A of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. It was submitted that the solitary ground raised by the petitioner in the captioned petition is that there is an order of status quo dated 21.10.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.1270 of 2020. It was submitted that the Civil Suit is with respect to the gift deed in connection with the unit where the petitioner is residing and the said status quo is with regard to the occupancy rights of the unit-in-question. The same would have no impact on the exercise of redevelopment. It was Page 4 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined submitted that when the order dated 21.01.2022 was passed by the learned Civil Court, the respondent No.1 was not a party to the Suit. The respondent No.1 has been joined as a party on 27.12.2023. The petitioner herein, in the Suit proceedings, has preferred a purshish supporting the redevelopment and in the present case, there are contrary stand is taken up and/or it would appear that the Suit is a collusive Suit.
7.2 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Virk, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, submitted that the dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. The individuals who are seeking redevelopment for a building which is more than 50 years old and that there is a consent of majority of 20 members, the redevelopment may not be stalled.
8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.526 of 2023 in case of Hansaben Ratubhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat dated 26.04.2023. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the said decision read thus:
"18. We have also gone through the guidelines of 2016 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat. The objectives are referred in clause 1, which reads as under:
"Urban Development & Urban Housing Department (UDD), Govt. of Gujarat proposes to undertake the redevelopment of public housing schemes in the urban areas of the state under PPP mode to achieve the following objectives: (i) to upgrade existing housing stock (ii) create additional affordable housing stock wherever possible (iii) to utilize available land in optimal manner and (iv) to improve neighborhood at no or minimal cost to the Government."Page 5 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined
19. The public housing scheme is defined under clause 2.1, which reads as under:
"a. Public Housing Scheme means a housing scheme developed by any public agency for the public at large, where ownership of land continues to remain with the public agency and only dwelling unit is sold to the beneficiary subject to conditions laid down in the scheme. b. Dilapidated condition means "Such houses which show signs of decay or breaking down and require major repairs and are far from being in condition that can be restored or repaired are considered as dilapidated."
20. Clause 3 of the guidelines reads as under:
"3. Approach: Redevelopment of public housing scheme may have the following three components:
1. Redevelopment of existing public housing scheme
2. Creation of Additional Affordable Housing Stock
3. Free Sale Component"
21. As per the said clause, public housing scheme may have three components viz. redevelopment of existing public housing scheme which is done in the present case; creation of additional affordable housing stock which is already part of redevelopment scheme since against 132 existing dwelling units, the developer is going to construct 261 dwelling units and there is also a third component which deals with free sale component.
22. Now free sale component is elaborated in clause 3.3 of the scheme, which reads as under:
"a. The developer may develop balance FSI remaining after redeveloping the existing housing units and construction of affordable housing units as permitted under general development control regulations for his own sale.
b. The developer may sub lease free sale component land on 99 year basis as per applicable statutory provision though ownership right of the land will remain with the concerned public authority."
24. It is also pertinent to note that as per clause 6.5 of the Gujarat Housing Board would be allotted under the supervision of implementing agency as per guiding principles of allotment of houses issued by the concerned department. Clause 6.5 reads as under:
"The housing units of redevelopment and affordable housing will be allotted under the supervision of implementing agency as per guiding principles of allotment of houses issued by the department."Page 6 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined 8.1 It is also apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down in Letters Patent Appeal No.336 of 2023 in case of Girishbhai Sumantlal Darji vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation dated 29.09.2023. Paragraph 8 of the said decision reads thus:
"8. We may note that at the inception of the argument in the present appeal, barring appellant No.3 namely, Chandrakantbhai Shriram Gupta, all other appellants herein have withdrawn the instant appeal and the appeal with respect to them has been dismissed as such on 13.9.2023, The lone appellant who is agitating the land for redevelopment on various grounds raised in the appeal, could not dispute that majority of the members of the society, 82% or more, have consented for redevelopment of the building in question. No dispute could be raised by the learned counsel for the said appellant that the building is more than four decades old and has outlived its life. It has become inhabitable and is posing risk to the residents of the society. In the light of the above admitted fact, only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the civil suit the learned Single Judge could not have directed to carry out redevelopment process, is found misconceived. Moreover, from the above, it is clear that out of 50 plaintiffs, who have filed the civil suit on 28.11.2019, only few remain who seek to press the said suit. The lone appellant herein cannot be permitted to stall the redevelopment process which has already been prolonged for a period of more than 5 years."
9. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge:
9.1 It emerges that the Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.1270 of 2020 and Civil Suit No. 997 of 2020 are pending between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 wherein, by order dated 21.10.2022, the competent Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the subject property.
9.2 The respondent No.1 issued Notice under Section 60(A) of Page 7 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined
the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 to the petitioner herein being occupier of two units, out of the 4 non-consenting members.
9.3 The Redevelopment Guidelines for Public Housing Projects, 2016, as referred above, are issued taking into consideration the benefit of the unit holders and the same is formulated for the benefit of redevelopment of 24 L.I.G. Patrakar Colony - 2. The same is in the interest of public at large.
10. Considering the fact that building-in-question is more than 50 years old and that, there is a consent of 83.33% beneficiaries, which is beyond 75% benchmark as prescribed under the Redevelopment Guidelines for Public Housing Projects, 2016, no interference is called for in the redevelopment project. Further, for a private dispute between the parties wherein, the Civil Suit No.1270 of 2020 is pending whereby, the status-quo is granted by the concerned Court with respect to the property-in-question, this Court is not inclined to stall the redevelopment process which is in the interest of all the members. The petitioner herein has also consented to the redevelopment by filing a purshish in the Suit proceedings.
11. Considering the facts of the present case the parties are governed by the scheme of redevelopment under Section 60(A) of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 and the position of law, as referred above, this Court is not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution Page 8 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3701/2024 ORDER DATED: 23/04/2024 undefined of India. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the respondent authority if, there is any grievance and/or any submissions that are to be addressed to the respondent authority. If the petitioner were to approach the respondent authority, the same be considered by the respondent authority in accordance with law. Needless to say the petitioner, respondent No.2 herein and respondent authority would be bound by the order that may be passed by the competent Court in Civil Suit No.1270 of 2020 and Civil Suit No. 997 of 2020. While not interfering with the impugned Notice dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner be granted the benefits, if any, available to the petitioner under the Scheme of Redevelopment of under Section 60(A) of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961.
12. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands dismissed.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) SALIM/ Page 9 of 9 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 29 20:55:31 IST 2024