Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.1 It is submitted that without offering any justification for deviation from the draft TP scheme, much less any error, the Town Planning Officer, for no reason, has cancelled and modified the separate final plots and combined them and one common plot has NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21780/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined been given amongst all the plot holders. As the Town Planning Officer has taken a decision to combine final plots, nothing further is left to be done inasmuch as, Section 53 of the Act of 1976, provides the decision of the Town Planning Officer to be final and binding. Furthermore, there is no provision of review or appeal. It is next submitted that Section 65 of the Act of 1976 is a provision where the State Government can only modify the scheme for a limited purpose of correcting error, irregularity or informality and is not the power of appeal and only error, irregularity can be taken care of and contemplates no hearing. Hence, in view of the breach of the fundamental provisions, the whole exercise has been vitiated.

10.1 Mr Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate submitted that vide sale deed dated 16.07.1988, the land was purchased of survey no.298 admeasuring 1185 sq. yards. Necessary details, have been incorporated in the 7/12 form and hence, the aspect of the road ought to have been considered. It is further submitted that the village form no.7/12 reflects the marg pot kharabo area of 2023 sq. mtrs. in survey no.298. Similarly, the same is reflected in the DSO record. Mr Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate submitted that clearly, as per the 7/12 form of the year 1993-1994, an area of 2023 has been earmarked as "Marg Ane Kharabo" meant for road and wasteland. It is submitted that even at the stage of sanctioning of the draft TP scheme, road was considered, which is clear from the affidavit filed by the Town Planning Officer & Senior Town Planner. Now, in view of the common plot allotted with no demarcation, the same would create chaos amongst the plot holders. Even while NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21780/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined preparing the draft TP scheme, the Corporation has considered the road area; however, the common road area was required to be considered on a pro rata basis amongst the plot holders; however, it is vanished in the scheme. It is further submitted that the road passing through survey no.298 was deleted by the State Government on 20.02.2004 and thereafter, on 16.09.2004, the draft TP scheme was sanctioned wherein, it is specifically provided that 30 meter road in survey no.298, shall be deleted and alignment shall be taken as provided in the approved development plan dated 20.02.2004.

13.5 It is next submitted that notice dated 28.03.2005 was issued to all the land owners which has been duly served. One of the co-owners submitted the reply and requested that she would be filing the reply within 15 days. Similarly, another co-owner also requested for allotment of the final plot in the original plot itself. One another co-owner, namely, Pourus R. Mehta, petitioner in another writ petition, has indicated that he had tried to get the Hissa Mapni but the DILR had not done the survey because of the objection by the other co-owner. It is submitted that the requirement of DILR was pointed out since the year 2005, 2006 and was not raised for the first time in the year 2021. Since the co- owners were unable to provide Hissa Mapni, the Town Planning Officer, has allotted a common plot to all the plot holders. Therefore, since the year 2005 all the plot holders were aware about the requirement; and as it was not fulfilled, decision has been taken.

14.2 It is further submitted that the provisions cover the aspect of NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21780/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2025 undefined development and planning and in the process individual may loose some right; however, it is for the benefit of the community and individual problems cannot be considered. The issues raised by the petitioners, are individual and for that the provision is for making a representation to the State Government under section 67A of the Act of 1976 and therefore, in view of the effective alternative remedy available, the issue cannot be determined in the writ petition. It is further submitted that not one but two remedies are available and for that purpose, the scheme cannot be put to hold and the petitioners can very well avail of the alternative remedies. It is conceded that the Corporation has committed a mistake in providing separate plots at the time of preparation of the draft TP scheme and ought to have allotted common plot.