Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The erstwhile owners bearing respondent Nos.5 to 9 started selling the individual plots from time to time to various persons in the year 1970-71 by entering into sale- deeds. All the sale-deeds entered into by the erstwhile owners with various purchasers of the individual plots mentioned among other things that the common plot bearing Nos.568 and 471 and the internal roads provided for were to be used jointly and commonly by all the plot holders and no one was allowed to construct an exclusive use on the said common plots. It was further duly provided in the said sale-deeds that revenue taxes for the common plots were to be shared by all the plot holders jointly. Copy of such sale-deed duly executed between the erstwhile owners and purchaser Mr.Arvindkumar Babulal Patel and Kirtikumar Babulal Patel has been annexed with the petition at Annexure-A.

11. Learned counsel, Mr.Hemang Shah, for the petitioners has raised manifold arguments. According to him, erstwhile owners have executed various sale deeds in favour of selling different 116 plots to respective plot holders. It was recited in the sale-deeds that final Plot No.568 and 471 will be kept as common plots for common use by the residents of the society. He has made reference to one of such sale-deeds available at Annexure-A page No.37 with HC-NIC Page 6 of 17 Created On Sun Aug 13 10:40:25 IST 2017 C/SCA/9019/2000 JUDGMENT the petition. He has made a specific reference to serial No.6 in the sale-deeds; wherein, it has been incorporated that the common plot will vest in the Society. He has also referred to Non Agriculture Use Permission order dated 16.5.1981; wherein, concerning plot Nos. 472, 474 to 476, 478, 485, 545 to 558, at clause No.15, it has been specifically mentioned that common plot will be kept open for the use by the residents of the society. Such recital is available at serial number 15 of this order.

19. Counsel for the Vadodara Municipal Corporation as well as learned AGP, both have adopted the arguments on the lines of counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 and has submitted that all the required procedures have been followed and under these circumstances, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

20. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. Learned counsel has first of all referred to the recital in the sale deed available at Annexure-A. Perusal of the sale deed shows that at the time of executing such sale-deed, the erstwhile owners have kept two plots as common plot for common use by the residents of the society. Even at the time of granting N.A. HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Sun Aug 13 10:40:25 IST 2017 C/SCA/9019/2000 JUDGMENT permission on 16.5.1981, the plots, in question, were kept as common plot. The recital regarding the same is available at serial number 15 of this document. The Authorities at the time of drawing Form No.F while converting original plot into final plot has given a note in the 'Remark' column that the land of plot No.568 and 471 having the area of 5020 Sq.Mtrs. is designated to be used as common plot in the layout plan. The wording reads as under: 



HC-NIC                                       Page 13 of 17     Created On Sun Aug 13 10:40:25 IST 2017
                   C/SCA/9019/2000                                                      JUDGMENT

It will be necessary to keep in mind that the scheme has been finalized in the year 1985 and application for variation has been made in the year 1999,meaning thereby, the application could not be made to the appropriate authority at the relevant time as relevant authority ceased to exist after Town Planning Scheme is finalized. Perhaps, under these circumstances, the application has been moved to the State Government asking for variation. The State Government was within its power to follow the procedure for the variation if such required variation was not substantial. The petitioner has sought variation on the ground that there was an error in Form No.F at the time of finalizing the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme in the year 1984-85. However, close perusal of the Form No.F leaves no doubt that there was no such typographical or other error which could empower the State Government to vary the scheme by taking away the common plot Nos.568 and 471 meant for common use by the residents of the society. This Court is further of the confirmed view that the required variation was substantial as it has affected 116 plot holders of the society who could use these common plots for common purposes.