Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that as referred in the facts, earlier H.R.P. Suit No. 40 of 2019 (Annexure-C- page 99) was filed by the tenants of Rangwali Chali, seeking to restrain original purchaser (developer) from directing the petitioners to vacate the property in question. Thereafter, H.R.P. Suit No. 40 of 2019 was withdrawn and compromise pursis dated 21.02.2019 was filed (page 102). The sale NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2374/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined deeds were executed between the parties. The petitioners herein are parties to the Sale deeds and they being owner of the property in question, were served with the notices on 11.01.2021 directing them to vacate their respective property which is subject matter of present petitions. Learned senior advocate submitted that the said notices refer to unauthorised construction however, the petitioners were not aware about the unauthorised construction done by the developer and for the fault of the developer, they may not be penalized. Moreover, the petitioners are in possession of the property in question and therefore they made applications under Gujarat Regularization of Aunauthorised Development Act, 2022 ("GRUDA, 2022" for short) in the year 2025 and the same were rejected. Against rejection of GRUDA application order, appeal is provided under GRUDA -2022 Act and till the appeal gets decided in accordance with law, the notice dated 11.01.2021 may not be acted upon. Moreover, the developer by an application dated 05.03.2025 has applied for permission for construction to the National Monument Authority as per the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 ("AMASR Act, 1958) and the said application is still not decided by the National Monument Authority and till the application under AMASR Act, 1958, gets decided, the notice dated 11.01.2021 may not be acted upon.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2374/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined 7.1. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that since the property in question is within the radius of 300 meters of ancient monument and under the provisions of AMASR Act,1958, the height beyond 18 meters is not permissible. In this case, construction done over and above 18 meters height has been demolished, therefore, the petitioners' properties may not be further demolished more particularly, in view of pending application before the Central Government authority under the AMASR Act, 1958.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2374/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined

8. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr.G.H.Virk for the respondent - Corporation submitted that the notice dated 11.01.2021 at page 27 refers to earlier notice dated 11.09.2019, issued under Section 267 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (GPMC Act). Under notice dated 11.09.2019, the petitioners were informed not to carry out constructions. Thus, the restrain order for further construction of property in question is evident from the notice dated 11.09.2019. The notice dated 11.09.2019 was followed by another notice dated 18.09.2019 under Section 260 (1) of the GPMC Act and an order dated 10.10.2019 under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act. Despite that, since the petitioners have continued with the construction that too without permission, sealing orders dated 02.09.2019, 15.09.2019 and 24.09.2019 were passed and the property in question were sealed. However, the petitioners broke open the seal and started using the property which was informed to the police on 11.08.2020. Thus, the conduct of the petitioners is not bonafide. Thereafter, the notice dated 11.01.2021 (impugned in the petition) was issued. After issuance of the notice, the petitioners responded to the notice dated 11.01.2021 by its reply dated 31.01.2021 (page 92). In the reply it was stated that since the officers of the Corporation were threatening to vacate the property in question for demolition of constructed building, the petitioners were compelled to prefer Civil Suit seeking injunction against the Corporation. However, the said Civil Suit was withdrawn, therefore, the contention raised of NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2374/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined pendency of suit is of no consequence. Thus, there is nothing to support that the property in question was duly constructed after obtaining development permission. Thus, since the construction of the property in question was unauthorised, notices dated 11.01.2021, were issued and there is no illegality in the same. 8.1. Further, the reliance placed on application preferred under the provisions of GRUDA, 2022 on 19.02.2025 is also of no consequence because the said applications were rejected by respondent Corporation by order dated 01.03.2025, on the ground that property in question is situated within radius of 300 meters of protected monument. The aspect of property in question located within radius of 300 meters of protected monument (in this case 187.19 meters) is not in dispute and also evident from an application filed by the developer seeking permission under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). Therefore, the rejection of GRUDA 2022, by applying Section 8(2)(f) of GRUDA, 2022, is appropriate. When the GRUDA application is rejected as it falls in exception clause, filing of appeal challenging that order is inconsequential.