Gujarat High Court
Manubhai Raichandbhai Shah vs Nadiad Municipal Corporation on 9 March, 2021
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/1314/2016 ORDERDt: 09/03/2021
MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH vs. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1314 of 2016
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9370 of 2001
==========================================================
MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH
Versus
NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL DAVE, SR. ADV.
For MR JF MEHTA(461) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SOHAM JOSHI ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s)
No. 3,4
MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH(773) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 09/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
1. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the Map and the latest Affidavit of the Petitioner-Appellant Mr.Manubhai Raichandbhai Shah dated 18.02.2021 and perused the site photographs also. We are prima facie of the opinion that had the matter been settled in terms of the Court Order dated 30.09.2019 amicably, in which, the Court gave a very reasonable suggestion to both the sides, the things would have settled by now but it seems that the Petitioner-Appellant has given a Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 10 23:03:51 IST 2021 C/LPA/1314/2016 ORDERDt: 09/03/2021 MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH vs. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s) Representation in pursuance to the said Order dated 30.09.2019 not in tune with the Town Planning Scheme notified and were not willing to hand over the vacant possession of the plot No.185/3 (Common Plot) to the Nadiad Municipal Corporation, which was intended to be allotted to one Jitendrabhai whose present site a smaller strip type plot as shown in map behind the Shopping Centre on Plot No.318 shown in the Map could have been utilised for other public purposes.
2. The Town Planning Scheme also envisages the widening of the Road from the present 3 meters width to 6 meters width in front of the three bungalows constructed by the Petitioner-Appellants and which also, in our opinion, is a genuine requirement of the Town Planning Scheme notified by the State. The variation in the scheme therefore at the instance of the present Petitioner-Appellant does not seem to be possible or desirable.
3. There is one Second Appeal filed by the present Petitioner- Appellant also, which is pending before the learned Single Judge being Second Appeal No.214 of 2013 which was also noticed by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 30.09.2019.
Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 10 23:03:51 IST 2021
C/LPA/1314/2016 ORDERDt: 09/03/2021 MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH vs. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s)
4. Mr.Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Appellant prays for short accommodation to take instructions from the Petitioner-Appellant whether his client would immediately hand over the vacant possession of the Plot No.185/3 to the Respondent Corporation or not and also permit the Respondent to widen the Road upto 6 meters width as envisaged in the Town Planning Scheme or not, failing which the Court may be constrained to pass adverse orders against the Petitioner-Appellant including the demolition of the property of the Petitioner-Appellant which is said to be constructed without any plans approved, to the extent required by the Municipal Corporation.
5. Time prayed for is allowed. Put up on 12.3.2021 on top of the list.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) NAIR SMITA V. Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 10 23:03:51 IST 2021