Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: draft sanctioning in Shri Leuva Patel Education And ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2025Matching Fragments
6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Kakkad relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Varahi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2019 (2) GLR 1088, to submit that once the Scheme is sanctioned and it has become part of the Act the scope of judicial review is minimal.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi by referring to the affidavit of Senior Town Planner submitted that after following all the prescribed provisions of the Act, 1976 and the procedure under the Rules, Junagadh Municipal Corporation forwarded Draft Town Planning Scheme No.1, Junagadh; to the State Government for its sanction under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1976 and the same was sanctioned by notification dated 11.02.1980. Thus, the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.1, Junagadh; was sanctioned under the provisions of Section 48(2) of the Act, 1976 by notification dated 11.02.1980. Thereafter, the Town Planning Officer was appointed to finalize the sanctioned Draft Town Planning NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15415/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined Scheme who entered upon his duties on 10.05.1980. The Town Planning Officer thereafter issued individual notices to the land owners inviting objections, suggestions on the proposal of Draft Town Planning Scheme on 24.11.1981. The issuance of notice to the petitioner is evident from notice dated 24.11.1981, (Annexure-R2 Page No. 95). Therefore, the contention that the petitioner was not served with the notice is beyond the facts. One more notice was issued on 01.12.1981 (Page No. 97) whereby personal hearing was also provided to the occupant. Thereafter, the scheme was sanctioned under Section 65 of the Act, 1976 which is evident from notification dated 26.02.1988 (Annexure-R5 Page No. 105). Thereafter, Final Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Junagadh; under Section 65 of the Act, 1976 was sanctioned vide notification dated 12.09.1995 and the same became part of Act. Therefore, now the land vests with the Government and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the respondent may be directed not to act upon is beyond the scope.
9. Moreover, it is noticed that the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.1, Junagadh which includes the property in question was sanctioned by the State Government on 26.02.1988. The Final Town Planning Scheme I, Junagadh was thereafter sanctioned on 12.09.1995. This aspect has been evident from Final F From at (Annexure R1 Page No. 76) wherein the property in question has been referred to as 'Neighborhood Center'. Also, there were earlier notices issued dated 14.06.2022 at (Annexure R2 Page No. 77), 21.12.2022 (Page No. 78) and 01.02.2023 (Page No. 79) whereby the petitioners were informed about implementation of Final Plot No. 114 'Neighborhood Center' as per sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No.1, Junagadh. The petitioner also filed response dated 11.10.2023 and therefore the contention raised in the petition that the petitioner was not made aware prior to the notices dated 21.12.2022 and 01.02.2023 is contrary to the facts on record. From the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 - Senior Town Planner, Gandhinagar it is noticed that Junagadh Nagarpalika prepared and submitted the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.1, Junagadh to State Government for its sanction under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1976. The State Government thereafter by its notification dated 11.02.1980 sanctioned the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.1, Junagadh under Section NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15415/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined 48(2) of the Act, 1976. Upon sanctioning of the Draft Town Planning Scheme under Section 48(2) of the Act, 1976, Town Planning Officer was appointed by notification dated 06.03.1980 to finalize the sanctioned Draft Town Planning Scheme I, Junagadh. Thereafter, the Town Planning Officer having entered upon his duties issued individual notices to the concerned land owners to invite objections/suggestions on the proposal of Draft Town Planning Scheme on 24.11.1981. This notice is forming part of reply at (Annexure-R2 Page No. 95).
14. In one more decision of this Court in the case of Natvarlal Penubhai Decd. Thro Legal Heirs vs. State of Gujarat it is held as under:-
"(14) As noticed hereinabove, the entire case of the petitioners hinges on finalization of the plot by calculating their respective shares on the entire plot. In this regard the petitioners have also contended that the respondent-SMC, in the process of finalizing the T.P. Scheme, should NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15415/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined have considered Entry No.1350 mutated in the revenue record showing the respective plot of the each of the petitioners. Such a contention raised by the petitioners cannot be entertained in wake of the aforementioned mentioned provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and also the Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976, after finalization of the Town Planning Scheme. As noted hereinabove, the partition deed dated 03.10.1975 of land bearing Revenue Survey No.53/2, has been executed subsequently, after sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme by the State Government on 06.09.1971. Thus, till the stage of the Draft Scheme the revenue record showed a consolidated plot and not in divisions, hence the Town Planning Officer proceeded on the basis of the single plot of Revenue Survey No.53/2. The State Government sanctioned the preliminary scheme being Town Planning Scheme No.6 under Section 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 on 27.10.1980 and the final scheme was sanctioned on 28.07.1987. At no point of time, the petitioners have raised an objection, hence the grievance of the petitioners does not merit acceptance. This Court cannot exercise its discretion by invoking its extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing any directions as prayed for in the writ petition, since such directions will dilute the entire purport and the scheme of the Act. The writ petition is barred by the principle of waiver and estoppel. Any directions issued at this stage will be deleterious to the objects of the Town Planning Scheme, and will set a wrong precedent. No directions, even on the suggestion of the respondent-Corporation can be issued by this Court for examining the grievance of the petitioners by a Committee formed under section 67 of the T.P. Act, 1976. Such a NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15415/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined direction, if is issued, will further give rise to a fresh cause of action and new litigation, after passage of almost 35 years from the finalization of the T.P.Scheme and that too in a writ petition, which has been filed after a period of 12 years after finalization of the Town Planning Scheme. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the notice dated 16.03.2022, which is served recently during the pendency of the writ petitions and are produced in the connected civil applications."