Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10101/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10101 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10101 of 2022
==========================================================
PANKAJBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK B GUPTA(5611) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, LD.ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 03/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging an order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the respondent-State, in not accepting the application of the petitioners under Section 67A of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short "TP Act, 1976").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vivek Gupta for the petitioners. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioners were owners and in possession of land comprising of original Survey No.367/2/K and 368 paiki, Sub-Plot No.5 of Town Planning Scheme No.53 (Isanpur) of District Sub-District:
Ahmedabad. Pursuant to finalization of Town Planning Scheme No.53 (Isanpur), the petitioners against their original plot, were allotted Final Plot No.97 + 104/6 in Town Planning Scheme Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Mar 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:22:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10101/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2025 undefined No.53 (Isanpur). The said plot was jointly allotted to in all 42 persons, who were owners and in possession of original plot.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Vivek Gupta submitted that since Final Plot was jointly allotted, the petitioners preferred an application under section 67A of the Town Planning Act seeking demarcation. The said application was rejected by an order dated 12.04.2022, against which this petition is filed.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Vivek Gupta submitted that the order dated 12.04.2022 is erroneous since it recorded incorrect facts. Inviting attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the order dated 12.04.2022, learned advocate submitted that it refers to grant of hearing on 29.03.2022 and non-
representation on behalf of the petitioner on 29.03.2022. However, the Notice was served to the petitioners on 29.03.2022 and therefore, petitioner could not attend the hearing. Further, earlier application dated 04.05.2016, seeking demarcation under Section 67A of the T.P.Act, was pending. However, the order records that the Committee constituted under Section 67A of the Act, is not empowered under Section 67A(2) of the T.P.Act to decide the said application. Since both the grounds are erroneous by which an application of the petitioners' seeking demarcation was rejected, the order dated 12.04.2022, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Mar 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:22:41 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10101/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2025 undefined
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi submitted that, it appears from record that when the earlier application of 2016 was considered, the petitioners' name might not have been reflected in "F" Form and that may be the reason for rejection of application. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submitted that the Committee constituted under Section 67A of the Act is empowered to consider the application of the petitioners seeking demarcation, if the allotment pursuant to finalization of Town Planning Scheme is owned jointly and the same is forming part of Form "F". Learned AGP, also pointed out that any application seeking demarcation is to be filed with form F.
7. Considered the submissions and documents on record. It is noticed that the application of the petitioners seeking demarcation under Section 67A of the Town Planning Act was rejected, considering non-representation on behalf of the petitioner and also by making reference of Section 67A(2) of T.P.Act. However, "F" Form, annexed along with the petition at "Annexure- J Colly" (Page-44), refers to petitioners' name as owners of Final Plot. In view of the above factual position, the following order is passed:
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Mar 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:22:41 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10101/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2025 undefined
(i) The order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the respondent-State is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The petitioners will make afresh application seeking demarcation under Section 67A of the Act within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) The Committee shall thereafter consider the application of the petitioners based on the documents placed along with the application as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.
(iv) This court has not gone into the merits of the matter.
8. With the above, the present petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. In view of disposal of main petition, civil application if any, will not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) DIPTI PATEL Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DIPTI PATEL(HC00191) on Thu Mar 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:22:41 IST 2025