Gujarat High Court
Bhagyoday Developers vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 2 November, 2015
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/18385/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18385 of 2015
==========================================================
BHAGYODAY DEVELOPERS,....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK J SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AMIT BAROT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 02/11/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Amit Barot, learned AGP for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate who is requested by this Court to appear for the respondent-Corporation on advance copy.
2. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, present petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"17(A) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by directing the respondents to consider written representation of petitioner dated 12-03-2015 (Annexure-D) to petition and offer alternate plot consist of an area of 839 sq. mt. in Draft Town Planning Scheme No.12 (First Variation, Nizampura), Vadodara.Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Nov 04 02:18:42 IST 2015 C/SCA/18385/2015 ORDER 17(B) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by declaring action of non giving an alternate plot to petitioner as prayed is arbitrary, unreasonable, smacks of favoritism and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and also violative of Article 300A of Constitution of India.
17(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition the Honourable Court be pleased to direct the respondents not to finalized Draft Town Planning Scheme No.12 (First Variation, Nizampura), Vadodara without deciding representations of petitioner (Annexure-B Collectively & D). Be further pleased to direct respondents to give one opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner to ventilate his grievance in support of his various representations.
17(D) The Honourable Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed, fit just and proper in the interest of justice."
3. At the outset, it may be stated that with almost similar subject, the very petitioner has approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.2913 of 2015 wherein this Court has passed following order on 20/02/2015:
"1. Heard Mr.Nishit Gandhi, for Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the Town Planning Officer to decide the objections/representation made by the petitioner dated 20.06.2012, 04.03.2013, 11.07.2013 and 31.12.2014 (at Annexure-C, D, F and G hereto) within a period of 30 days;Page 2 of 4
HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Nov 04 02:18:42 IST 2015 C/SCA/18385/2015 ORDER (B) During the pendnecy and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Town Planning Officer to decide the objections/representation made by the petitioner dated 20.06.2012, 04.03.2013, 11.07.2013 and 31.12.2014 (at Annexure-C, D, F and G hereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question;
(C)***"
3. It appears from the application made by the petitioner to the Town Planning Officer (at Annexure-C to the petition) that the land in question is situated within the area of draft Town Planning Scheme (First variation) No.12 (Nizampura), Vadodara.
4. Provisions of Section 52(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("Act for short) as well as Rules-26(3) and 26(4) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 are crystal clear and therefore, no further directions are necessary to be given in this petition, as prayed for.
5. The Town Planning Officer is duty bound to follow the said provisions and while proceeding to prepare and publish a preliminary town planning scheme, as provided under Section 52(2) of the Act, it would be incumbent of the Town Planning Officer to consider the representations filed by the petitioner, which is relied upon by it. It would be open for the petitioner to file further and detailed representation, which may also be considered as observed in this order.
With these observations, petition stands disposed of."
4. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioner has apprehension on the basis of the information under the Right to Information Act which is at Annexure-E. Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Nov 04 02:18:42 IST 2015 C/SCA/18385/2015 ORDER
5. The record indicates that the scheme is at the stage of preparation of Town Planning Scheme. The provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act' read with Rule 26 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules') prescribes for clearcut procedure that the Town Planning Officer has to follow. Even after the Town Planning Officer takes decision, he has to forward the same to the State Government as provided under Section 64 of the Act and, thereafter, the State Government takes decision as provided under Section 65 of the Act.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the apprehension put forward by the petitioner is not only premature but the same is not properly founded. Over and above, as provided in the order dated 20/02/2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.2913 of 2015, the State Government is also directed to consider the representations of the petitioner which are already filed before sanctioning the scheme as provided under Section 65 of the Act.
7. With this observation, present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) ila Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Nov 04 02:18:42 IST 2015