Gujarat High Court
Girishbhai vs State on 8 August, 2008
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2875720/2007 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28757 of 2007
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28758 of 2007
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28766 of 2007
=========================================================
GIRISHBHAI
I VARIA & 9 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 11 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 10.
MR SATYAM CHHAYA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR PR
ABICHANDANI for Respondent(s) : 5 -
12.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
In this group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the Government in allotting the open plot in front of their residential units to other Government Servants primarily on the ground that under the GDCR framed by Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority, such plots reserved for playground or plot etc. cannot be alloted in favour of the any person.
Having heard learned advocate Shri Raval for the petitioners, learned AGP Shri Satyam Chhaya for the State Government and learned advocate Shri Pitamber Abichandani for respondents No. 5 to 12, alottees of other land, I find that there is no material on record to show that land in question was reserved for common use such as playground, etc. Learned AGP submitted that plot in question was only an open land of the ownership of the Government which after detailed consideration and deliberation, Government has decided to allot in part to different Government servants for their residential requirements.
When it is pointed out that the land belongs to the Government and that land was not reserved for any particular purpose, it is always open for the Government to use the same as may be permissible under the rules. In-fact, the petitioners themselves received their lands through such allotments made by the Government. It may be that the petitioners have been using open plot for recreational activities including as a playground, nevertheless, they cannot insist that plot be kept open for all times to come. Reliance on clause 2.3.34 of the GDCR also is not well founded. The said regulation primarily defines the term common plot and provides that the term shall mean open space exclusive of margin and approaches and further provides that owner shall have to give an undertaking that common plot shall be for governing use of any resident or occupant of the building unit free of cost. Obviously, the definition does not cover open land of the Government which is not reserved for any purpose.
Under the circumstances, I find that the petitions cannot be entertained. Same are dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu) Top