Gujarat High Court
A Infrastructure Limited & vs State Government Of Gujarat & 6 on 21 July, 2017
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/13728/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13728 of 2017
==========================================================
A INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT & 6....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL T. PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 21/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment is granted.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder for the prayer as prayed including the restraining the authority from implementing the scheme and/or taking coercive steps qua the land in question bearing survey No.224/1/2/1.
3. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore appearing with learned advocate Shri Vishal Patel for the petitioners.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Thakore has referred to the background of the facts contending that the petitioner is a lessee having a license agreement, which was executed in Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Jul 22 01:09:42 IST 2017 C/SCA/13728/2017 ORDER 2005. He has also referred to the supplementary agreement executed between the petitioner and the original owner. He has referred to the fact that the mortgage has been created in favour of the Bank of Baroda and that original owner, cannot be said to have absolute ownership and therefore, possession could not have been given by the original owner. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Thakore also referred to the provisions of Section 48 and 48(A) of the Town Planning Act and submitted demolition may not take place.
5. However, in view of the averments and the submissions, it is evident that possession has been given by the original owner as referred to at Annexure-A dated 20.04.2017. The communication is addressed to the original owner and the petitioner, who is claiming right on the ground of possession pursuant to the agreement between the petitioner and the original owner, is a transaction between the two private individuals. The submissions which have been made with regard to the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme referring to Section 48 and 48(A), requires consideration. However, as it has been submitted that portion of the land was given by the petitioner for the road, it requires consideration.
Therefore, Notice is ordered to be issued to the respondents returnable on 27.07.2017.
6. Direct service is permitted.
7. Petitioners are at liberty to move before this Court in case of difficulty.
Page 2 of 3HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Jul 22 01:09:42 IST 2017 C/SCA/13728/2017 ORDER (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) ABHISHEK Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Jul 22 01:09:42 IST 2017