Gujarat High Court
Manharbhai Chimanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 3 August, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/12449/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12449 of 2017
==========================================================
MANHARBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 03/08/2017
ORAL ORDER
1 It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner herein purchased land for industrial purpose in July 2011. In compliance with the provisions of Section 63AA (3)(a) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the petitioner informed within thirty days from the date of purchase to the Collector that he intends to use the land for bonafide industrial purpose. Indisputably, at the time of purchase of the land in question and even at the time when the notice was sent to the Collector, there was no Bharuch Urban Development Authority. The Bharuch Urban Development Authority came into existence in January 2012. Before the Collector concludes the inquiry in accordance with Section 63AA(3)(c) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Urban Development Authority came into force. The land appears to have been included in a development plan. The Collector is in a dilemma that with the Urban Development Authority coming into force and the land falling now within the residential zone, whether it would Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Aug 04 00:49:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/12449/2017 ORDER be permissible to accord necessary permission for use of the land for industrial purpose.
2 The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the application was filed much before the Urban Development Authority came into force, and it was expected of the authority concerned i.e. the Collector to have taken an appropriate decision at the right time. The subsequent development in the form of the Urban Development Authority coming into force should not come in the way of the petitioner for the purpose of using the land for industrial purpose.
3 Prima facie, it appears that the land in question is situated in an area which is surrounded by industries. There might be few stray residential premises also. To substantiate the area is covered by the industries. It is difficult to appreciate at this point of time or rather understand how the authority would like to now proceed further with the introduction of a development plan and include the entire area into the same.
4 Although Notice was issued for final disposal, yet as the picture is not clear, some deliberations are required. Ms. Thakore, the learned A.G.P. shall take further instructions in detailed and file an appropriate reply making the stance one and all clear so that the petitioner should also know where he stands. Post the matter on 19th September 2017.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Aug 04 00:49:32 IST 2017