Gujarat High Court
Kanaiyalal (Kantibhai) Nathubhai Shah vs Deputy Town Planning on 14 October, 2013
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
KANAIYALAL (KANTIBHAI) NATHUBHAI SHAH....Petitioner(s)V/SDEPUTY TOWN PLANNING OFFICER C/SCA/15744/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15744 of 2013 =========================================================== KANAIYALAL (KANTIBHAI) NATHUBHAI SHAH....Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY TOWN PLANNING OFFICER & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MS KETTY A MEHTA with MR TULSHI R SAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 14/10/2013 ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is a classic case of blatant illegality committed by the developer contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'). The petitioner invokes jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the respondent authority has passed a non-speaking order impugned in this petition and opportunity is not given for the document on which reliance is placed. Further, exercise of powers by the authority namely the competent as well as the appellate under Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 (GRUDA, 2011) is mechanical and it is a result of non-application of mind on the grounds raised in the Appeal preferred before the appellate authority under GRUDA 2011.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was never granted any development permission in respect of the subject land for carrying out the construction of the commercial building on Plot Nos.34 to 45 on Block No.7 of Village Laskana, Tal. Kamrej, District Surat in the years 2008 to 2009. In the above circumstances, the competent authority under the Town Planning and Urban Development Act issued a Notice on 29.12.2010 to discontinue the commercial construction, but inspite of the above fact the petitioner continued to do so and almost completed the construction.
In the above backdrop of factual scenario, if the scheme of GRUDA 2011 is perused, a completely illegal construction contrary to development permission can never be subject matter of regularisation and when the petitioner has abused the process of law and committed illegality as noticed by the competent authority and the appellate authority under GUDA. In addition to the above, an Undertaking was given to remove the unauthorised construction. Further, records from the writ petition if perused including the N.A. Permission, layout plan sanctioned, permission granted for development under the Act, and the orders passed by the authorities, there is no dispute about the illegality committed by the petitioner to warrant any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Besides, the competent as well as the appellate authority have assigned cogent reasons for not accepting the case of the petitioner about time and period of nature of construction for invoking provisions of GRUDA 2011 on the basis of documents that it was not established that construction was prior to 28.03.2011.
That concurrent findings of facts by both the authorities are based on appreciated records for which reasons are assigned.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and the petition is rejected with a cost of Rs.25,000/= (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of writ of this Court, before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
Sd/-
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) CAROLINE Page 4 of 4