Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: common open plot in Pushpaben Kabansinh Haravat vs Collector & 2 on 17 October, 2016Matching Fragments
5. The request made by the learned AGP for differing the hearing of this application cannot be accepted. It is worthwhile to note here that while granting status quo order in Civil Application (for stay) No.9186 of 2012 on 05.09.2012, the applicants were permitted to make an appropriate application to the Collector, Bhavnagar for regularization of lands/plots in question on payment of market price as on today without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the main Second Appeal. Pursuant to this liberty the applicants moved the collector, Bhavnagar, who, by his order dated 16.04.2013, HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Tue Oct 18 02:39:13 IST 2016 has approved the layout plan sanctioned by the Town Planner, Bhavnagar on 1.03.2013 subject to certain conditions, and condition No.3 thereof stipulates that the approval is subject to the outcome of Second Appeal No.162 of 2012 which is pending in this Court. This order of the Collector, Bhavnagar is taken into suo moto revision by the S.S.R.D. Thus, the order which is taken into suo moto revision itself stipulates that the plan is approved subject to the outcome of the Second Appeal No.162 of 2012 which is pending in this Court. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant is required to be permitted to go ahead with the construction albeit subject to the outcome of the Second Appeal, and the applicant filing an undertaking in the Second Appeal to the effect that the construction shall be made strictly in accordance with the approved layout plans by keeping common plot open and the applicants shall not claim any equity and shall demolish the construction if the State Government succeeds in the Second Appeal.