Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai vs Ahmedabad on 2 August, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8140/2010 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8140 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
PANKAJBHAI
BHOGILAL MEHTA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR BHUNESH
C RUPERA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
NEERAJ SONI, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR YF
MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 02/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent authorities to take legal action with regard to the illegal construction put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, Shri R.M. Chhaya, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Corporation and has stated that Corporation has already taken steps to remove illegal construction of sheds and with respect to the height of the compound wall, much before the filing of the present petition. It is submitted that now the dispute is with respect to some iron angles on the boundary wall of the bungalow of respondent No.4, which would be a common wall so far as the common plot and the bungalow of respondent No.4 is concerned. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that no steps are taken by the Corporation to remove illegal construction.
3. Shri Rupera, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as such respondent No.4 has encroached upon some portion of the common plot. Let the Officer of Corporation have measurement of common plot in presence of respective parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 and if it is found that respondent Nos.3/4 has made any encroachment on the common plot, necessary steps shall be taken by the Society to remove such encroachment after following due procedure of law. However, it is to be noted that for the aforesaid, this Court has not expressed anything on merits.
4. With this, present Special Civil Application is disposed of.
(M.R. Shah, J.) *menon Top