Gujarat High Court
Shaikh Nasrinbi Mohammad Akeel vs The Appellate Officer , Gruda -2022 on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 816 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7884 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 816 of 2025
==========================================================
SHAIKH NASRINBI MOHAMMAD AKEEL & ORS.
Versus
THE APPELLATE OFFICER , GRUDA -2022 & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NAUMAN S QURESHI(10669) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. RISHABH MUNSHAW FOR MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. KARTIKEY KANOJIYA, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby while dismissing the writ petition seeking to challenge the notice issued under Section 36(4) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (in short' the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined T.P.Act' hereinafter) by the Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA), respondent No.3 herein, 15 days time was granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises-in-question. Direction was given to the respondent SUDA to act upon the notice dated 04.06.2025 by providing 15 days time to the petitioners to vacate the premises from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Time of 15 days to act on the notice was further granted.
3. The present appeal is presented on 04.07.2025, i.e. at the verge of completion of time granted by the learned single Judge with the assertion that the learned single has erred in dismissing the writ petition ignoring the fact that the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority under the The Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2022 (in short 'the GRUDA, 2022') has never been communicated to the petitioners. The contention is that the petitioners have filed the Special Civil Application No. 3649 of 2024 challenging the notice dated 15.06.2024 passed by the competent authority under the Provisions of the GRUDA, 2022 in rejecting the application for regularisation of the construction filed by the petitioner. While disposing of the said writ petition, vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2025, liberty was granted to the petitioners to file appeal under the GRUDA, 2022 and a further direction was given to the Appellate Authority to decide the same expeditiously. The contention is that after institution of the appeal, the petitioners sought time from the Appellate Authority to present relevant documents to substantiate their case that the petitioners were entitled for regularisation of the existing constructions.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
However, the time sought was denied by the Appellate Authority and, moreover, the order dated 02.06.2025 of rejection of the appeal was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioners came to know about the said order only vide notice dated 04.06.2025, which was subject matter of challenge before the learned single Judge.
4. A perusal of the memo of the petition filed before the learned single Judge indicates that the petitioners had sought the following reliefs before the writ court, "(A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting the impugned communication issued by Respondent No.3 (SUDA) dated 04.06.2025;
(B) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the original orders of rejection passed by the petitioners' GRUDA applications;
(C) This court may grant leave to place on record and seek the quashing of the as well as the consequential, uncommunicated appellate order, whenever served upon to the petitioners;
(D) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondent Authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularisation de novo in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice;"
5. In the order impugned, the learned single Judge has recorded in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 as under :-
"9. Considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon. Revisitation of certain facts would be necessary. This is second round of litigation. Earlier a complaint dated 06.10.2023 was received by respondent no.3- SUDA, regarding unauthorised construction of subject premises. (Annexure-A- page 135). Pursuant to which a report by surveyor of SUDA was prepared dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-D, Page-138) and sent for necessary action along with revenue record and photographs. Accordingly, notice dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-F page 140) was issued under Section Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 36 (1)(2) of the TP Act by respondent - SUDA, fixing the hearing on 03.01.2024 and to provide documents referred in the said notice. In response to the same, representative of the petitioners appeared on 03.01.2024 and sought time till 18.01.2024 to file necessary documents. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned on 18.01.2024. On 18.01.2024, no documents were produced and once again, on a request made, the matter was adjourned to 03.02.2024. Therefore, evidently after notice dated 19.12.2023, the petitioners were provided opportunities to file necessary documents, which they failed in filing. It appears that based on the revenue record, notice dated 19.12.2023 was issued in the name of erstwhile owners. Thereafter, the notices under Section 36(1)(2) dated 05.02.2024 were issued to occupants of the subject premises, who are petitioners herein. The notices dated 05.02.2024 was subject matter of challenge in SCA No. 3649 of 2024 wherein this Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 18.02.2025, on a request made on behalf of petitioners that since their application seeking regularization of unauthorised construction is rejected, they would prefer appeal within one week challenging that order. This court while disposing of the petition, permitted the petitioners to prefer appeal under GRUDA -2022, along with necessary documents. Protection of not to take any coercive action in relation to demolition was granted till the decision on appeal. It is noticed that the appeal against order dated 15.06.2024 (rejection of GRUDA application) was rejected by an order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure- K Page 151). Consequently, the order dated 04.06.2025, under Section 36(4) of the TP Act was passed.
10. If the order dated 15.06.2024 is re-visited, it states that the petitioner failed in producing requisite documents as also failed in answering the queries raised on 26.04.2024. The appeal authority also while rejecting appeal by an order dated 02.06.2025, observed that no documents have been produced by the petitioners as directed along with the appeal memo. The Appellate Authority prior to order dated 02.06.2025 also provided one more opportunity to place on record the documents, which the petitioners have failed. Earlier also when SUDA authorities issued individual notices dated 05.02.2024, the petitioners were provided with opportunities to raise their grievance with the necessary documents in support of their claim. Neither before the GRUDA Authority nor before the Appeal Authority, the petitioners produced any documents as required in support of their claim. Most importantly, even in the present petition, the petitioners have not annexed a single document justifying their claim of regularization of unauthorized construction. Therefore, the submission that despite existence of beneficial legislation, the authority failed in accepting the application of the petitioners' seeking regularization of unauthorised construction does not merit acceptance. The petitioners do not possess vested right to continue with unauthorised construction. Further, the opportunities granted to the petitioners to produce the documents to support their construction, as referred herein above Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined does not justify the contention made on behalf of the petitioners' that orders passed were in breach of principles of natural justice. "
6. A perusal of the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid paragraphs, makes it clear that the first notice regarding unauthorised construction was issued under Section 36(1)(2) of the T.P.Act on 19.12.2023 in the name of the erstwhile owners. The date fixed for hearing intimated in the said notice was 03.01.2024 and the noticee was required to appear before the competent authority alongwith the documents referred in the said notice. It is recorded by the learned single Judge that the representative of the petitioners appeared on 03.01.2024, sought time till 18.01.2024 to file necessary documents and the matter was adjourned. On the next date, i.e. on 18.01.2024, no documents were produced and the request for adjournment was made. The notice dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 36(1)(2) was issued to the petitioners being the occupants of the subject premise, against which the writ petition No. 3649 of 2024 was filed. Before the competent authority and Appellate Authority under the GRUDA, the petitioners have failed to produce the necessary documents substantiating their case for regularisation of the constructions.
7. Taking note of the above, suffice it to record that even the Appellate Authority by order dated 02.06.2025 had provided one more opportunity to place on record the necessary documents, which the petitioners have failed to produce.
8. The only ground to challenge to the notice issued by Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined SUDA under Section 36(1)(2) of the T.P. Act and the order passed by the competent authority and the Appellate Authority under the GRUDA, 2022, is denial of due opportunity of hearing. There is no challenge to the merits of the order. Nothing has been brought before us to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to regularisation of the constructions and there is an error in the order passed by the competent authority under the GRUDA, 2022.
9. Bald assertions about the violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be appreciated in absence of any case made out by the petitioners on the merits of his case. Moreover, the learned single Judge has categorically recorded that the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity of hearing and at no point of time, necessary documents were produced either before the competent authority or Appellate Authority. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
10. Pertinent is to note that the petitioners claimed to be occupiers of the building-in-question and have not been able to produce any document of having any right or title in the property-in-question.
11. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision of the Apex Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1985) 3 SCC 545] is of no help.
12. With the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the learned single Judge.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/816/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
13. Lastly, on the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants are ready and willing to evict the premises provided reasonable time is given to them, it is provided that subject to an undertaking given by each of the occupiers on a notary affidavit before the respondent No.3 within a period of three days from today, the petitioners be permitted to vacate the premises on or before 10th August, 2025. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to give undertaking as directed hereinabove alongwith the copy of this order or to evict the premises within the time granted above, it would be open for the SUDA to conduct appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law.
14. With the above observation and direction, the appeal is dismissed. The Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:19:07 IST 2025