Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. By   way   of   this   petition   under   Article   226   of  the   Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioner   has  prayed for the following reliefs:­ "A) Your   Lordships   may   be   pleased   to  issue a writ of mandamus or any other  appropriate   writ,   order   or   direction  to   the   respondent   no.2   and   4   from  removing the common plot No.2 and 3 of  the   petitioner   society   and   also  further   direction   to   restrain   from  laying down the 18 meters road instead  of 12 meters road of the society. 

B) Pending   admission,   hearing   and  till final disposal of this petition,  Your   Lordships   be   pleased   to   direct  the   respondent   authority   i.e.   res.  No.2   and   4   from   removing   the   common  plot   nos.   2   and   3   of   the   petitioner  society. 

C) Be pleased to grant such other and  further reliefs which may deem fit and  proper in the interest of justice. 13­D.   This   Hon'ble   Court   may   be  pleased to direct the respondent no.2  and   4   to   construct   the   compound   wall  of   the   society   which   is   removed   by  respondent   no.3   and   further   direction  to   extend   the   12   meter   to   18   meter  road   passing   from   the   society   and   or  to   connect   the   said   road   strait   way  the   Borisna   Sanand   Road   without  removing common plots of society.  13­E.   Be   pleased   to   direct   the  HC-NIC Page 2 of 22 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:49:26 IST 2016 opponents   no.2,   5   and   6   to   construct  the   compound   wall   which   removed   by  them   in   collusion   with   opponent   no.2  and 4. 

3. Facts which can be culled out from the record  of the petition are as under:­ That,   the   petitioner   is   the   President   of   one  society known as Shri Govind Sagar Cooperative  Housing   Society   Ltd.,   Borisana   at   Kalol,  District   Gandhinagar.   It   is   the   case   of   the  petitioner   that   the   petitioner   society   was  organized   by   respondent   No.3   and   he   purchased  the   land   bearing   block   No.602   being   of   old  tenure   situated   at   village   Borisana­Kalol  admeasuring   about   7227   sq.   mtrs.,   for  construction of 60 tenements. It is the case of  the   petitioner   that   the   competent   authority  issued   the   registration   certificate   dated  HC-NIC Page 3 of 22 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:49:26 IST 2016 19.5.2004 and thereafter, ultimately, the land  in question was mutated in the revenue records  in the name of the society. It is further the  case   of   the   petitioner   that   as   per   the  sanctioned   plan   of   AUDA,   there   is   a   12   mtr.  wide   road   on   eastern   side   of   the   society   and  there are two  common plots adjoining the  said  road   of   common   plot   No.3   admeasuring   about  228.00   sq.   mtrs.   and   common   plot   No.2  admeasuring about 352 sq. mtrs which are of the  properties of the society and the 12 mtr. road  is passing  from the  petitioner society to the  adjoining   society.   It   is   further   the   case   of  the petitioner that respondent No.3 is blocking  the   said   road   and   also   demolished   the   common  wall   of   the   society   for   the   benefit   of   his  adjoining   society,   in   collusion   with   the  respondent   authority   i.e.   AUDA.   It   is   further  the case of the petitioner that even though the  name of the petitioner is mutated in the name  of   the   society,   the   petitioner   society   being  owner and occupier,  no  notice was served  upon  HC-NIC Page 4 of 22 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:49:26 IST 2016 the petitioner society. It is further the case  of the petitioner that on the basis of the RTI  application,   the   petitioner   came   to   know   that  AUDA   has   now   placed   18   mtr.   road   which   would  mean   that   common   plot   Nos.2   and   3   of   the  society   will   be   removed,   which   is   without  following   due   process   of   law   under   the  provisions   of   the   Gujarat   Town   Planning   and  Urban   Development   Act,   1976   (hereinafter  referred to as "the Act"). Similar, contention  is   raised  by   way   of  a   draft  amendment.  It   is  further   contended   by   the   petitioner   that   the  provision   of   18   mtr.   road   is   not   based   on  public   policy   and   is   for   the   benefit   of  respondent No.3 -  private builder and also to  benefit one Umashikhar Flats and Shrifal Avenue  of   other   builders   and   such   action   is   against  the provisions of Sections 26, 42, 47 and 52 of  the   Act   as   well   as   against   the   provisions   of  GDCRs   3.3   and   4.2.   It   is   also   contended   that  such   provision   is   made   without   following   the  principles   of   natural   justice   and   therefore,  HC-NIC Page 5 of 22 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:49:26 IST 2016 such action is violative of Articles 14, 19 and  300A of the Constitution of India.