Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: common plot in Khemraj Tejaji Desai vs Gujarat Industrial Development ... on 16 December, 2022Matching Fragments
3. It is the case of the petitioner that before this application for online allotment could be approved, the GIDC with a view to facilitate the respondent no.5 issued a circular dated 14.07.2015, which provided that the provision of allotment of plots adjacent to the existing plot within the radius of 100 meters was done away with and was substituted by a provision that a plot which has a common plot would be treated as a plot adjacent to the existing plot. In light of this circular, the GIDC by a communication dated 29.07.2015 informed the petitioner that its C/SCA/4934/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/12/2022 application for allotment of adjacent plot was treated to have been filed.
7. Mr.Ravani appearing for Mr.Shastri learned advocate for the respondent no.5 would make the following submissions:
7.1 Mr.Ravani would submit that initially the C/SCA/4934/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/12/2022 circular of August 2012 provided for allotment of a plot where 'adjacent plot' was a plot across the road, whereas, subsequent thereto, in light of the policy dated 16.02.2016, a plot having a common wall was treated as one adjacent to the existing plot.
10. For the petitioner to contend that the policies of 14.07.2015 and that of 16.02.2016 diluting the requisite terminology of an adjacent plot to that C/SCA/4934/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/12/2022 of a plot having a common wall and giving a go- bye to the distance of 100 meters having been tweaked only for the purposes of facilitating allotment to the respondent no.5 appears to be misconceived.
11. When the policy circular dated 28.08.2012 is read, it clearly indicates that it too provided for not only an adjacent plot being a plot within 100 meters of the existing plot but also provided for a plot as being one having a common wall. The policy dated 28.08.2012 cannot be read only in context of Clause 3 thereof. Clause 4(2) provided for an adjacent plot as a plot which had a common wall. The circular of 14.07.2015 therefore diluted this to that only of an adjacent plot being one with a common wall. It was in light of this fact that the application of the petitioner for allotting of plot across the road C/SCA/4934/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/12/2022 was filed. To consolidate the policy therefore, a circular of 16.02.2016 was issued inter-alia restricting allotment to the existing plot holders wanting a plot for an expansion for a plot having a common wall. For the petitioner therefore to interpret the policy circular of 16.02.2016 to the one made to facilitate allotment of the plot to the respondent no.5 though two extended allotments were made is an argument which is far-fetched.
14. The policy circular of 16.02.2016 which singled out adjacent plot allotment concepts to plot having a common wall was not foreign to such policy when that was a condition even one in the policy of 28.08.2012.
15. As is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the decision in case of C/SCA/4934/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/12/2022 Anshika Goel (supra), reads as under.