Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Per contra, Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.1 has supported the orders passed by the District Development Officer as well as the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. She pointed out that it is crystal clear from the observations made by both the authorities that the petitioners' conduct disentitles themselves for any sympathy of this Court. Learned AGP relying upon the observations made by the District Development Officer canvassed that though the petitioners have not constructed the shops, it is an admitted position that the shops were constructed upon open land, which according to original layout, was required to be kept as open land i.e. common open plot. Learned AGP pointed out that it is recorded by the authorities that the original owners - Jiva Popat and Trikam Popat have not taken any prior permission of transfer of this land in favour of Rajen Bhikhubhai Dhruv and no prior permission whatsoever has been obtained for making construction over the land, which was as per the layout, part of the common open plot. Learned AGP further pointed out that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of record which warrants interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has also reiterated the stand taken by the learned AGP. Mr. Anshin H. Desai, learned advocate for respondent No.4 has also supported both the orders.