Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It was further the case of the appellants- petitioners that the members of the appellant society purchased tenements constructed on the land with NA permission of the said Scheme by registered sale documents in the year 2008 and became owner. It was also submitted that while sanctioning the revised layout plan for 48 residential tenements, proposed on land bearing the said final plot allotted in lieu of the said original plot with proportionate part of Final Plot No.2 allotted in lieu of the land bearing Survey Nos.498/P denoted as "land without NA", marked with hash and issued revised development permission for carrying out the construction of 25 tenements proposed on the land with NA permission with a special conditions that no development permission is granted for any construction in land marked with hash in the layout plan and secondly, the development permission is granted subject to removal of construction of tenement No.B/1, B/28, B/29, B/30 and B/31 marked with 'existing work to be removed'. It was the case of the appellants- original petitioners that by way of registered sale deeds executed during 2011-2014, the appellants became co-owner of the common plot and are in possession thereof since the common plot has been vested in the appellant society. After sanction of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.37/A (Thaltej), the Town Planning Officer (TPO) was appointed to sub-divide the Town Planning Scheme into preliminary scheme and a final scheme and thereafter process went on. Initially, within a period of 20 days, according to the appellants, no objections were received against the action of sub-division of Final Plot No.2, but then despite the fact that in view of Section 51 of the Act, there is no power to enlarge the time, still the objections which were received after 500 days almost, the authority processed the further steps but by that time, according to the appellants, 5 tenements, which are referred to above and which were sought to be removed, had been regularized under the provisions of GRUDA- 2011.

4. It is further the case of the appellants that despite the fact that the process of sub-division of Final Plot No.2 is not in consonance with the law prescribed, the Town Planning Officer had fraudulently proposed; (i) Sub-divide Final Plot No.32 admeasuring 2962 Sq. Mtrs. Into Final Plot Nos.32/1 and 32/2 admeasuring 790 and 2132 Sq. Mtrs. respectively, leaving access land of 40 Sq. Mtrs.,

(ii) sub-divide Final Plot No.2 admeasuring 7703 Sq. Mtrs. Into Final Plot Nos.2/1, 2/2/1 and 2/2/2 admeasuring 3286, 2287 and 2130 Sq. Mtrs. respectively and then (iii) to fraudulently, renumber the Final Plot No.2/2/2 admeasuring 2130 Sq. Mtrs. as Final Plot No.32/2 admeasuring 2132 Sq. Mtrs. and to renumber Final Plot No.32/2 admeasuring 2132 Sq. Mtrs. along with access land of 40 Sq. Mtrs. as Final Plot No.2/2/2 admeasuring 2173 Sq. Mtrs., wherein Final Plot Nos.2/1 and 32/2 are not in regular shape, violating the condition No.4 of sanction notification of the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.37/A (Thaltej). Thus, according to the appellants, erroneously, the authority has processed the part of the land bearing Final Plot No.2 with common road, common plot and main gate of the petitioner society. To this proposal of the TPO, apparently, according to the appellants, condition No.4 of the sanction notification of the Draft Town Planning Scheme is violated. This has been submitted, as a result of which, not only there was a substantial variation without previous sanction of the respondent No.1 authority but seriously prejudicial to the appellants. Initially, a petition was moved by the appellants, being Special Civil Application No.14484 of 2016 and during pendency of the said petition, the respondent No.1 had sanctioned the preliminary scheme and then since the petition came to be dismissed, the appellants were constrained to prefer Letters Patent Appeal, being Letters Patent Appeal No.1508 of 2017, which was not pressed by the appellants with a view to move an appeal under Section 70 of the Act and thereafter, the authority had passed order on 15/17.7.2019 and the appellants- petitioners preferred a writ petition challenging the said order under Section 70 of the Act. Learned Single Judge after hearing at length on 21.10.2019 dismissed the Special Civil Application, which was numbered as 13578 of 2019, which is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal before us.

6. It has further been contended by learned advocate Mr. Shah that there is a serious prejudice likely to be caused to the legitimate enjoyment of the common plot, common gate of the society and based upon some collusive acts of the authority and the purchasers who are subsequently joined, the challenge is frustrated. In fact, there is a serious irregularity crept in sanctioning the Scheme, as such, it was well within the power of the authority to exercise the discretion. It has further been contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge is not based upon proper scrutiny of the material which is placed before the Court and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the record, hence deserves to be corrected.