Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The dispute from the side of the Respondent Nadiad Municipal Corporation and State appears to be two fold viz. (i) public road in one of the Bungalows of the Appellants is required to be widened to the width of 6 mtrs. instead of present 3 mtrs. and according to the Respondent, the Appellants have encroached and constructed their boundary wall and the size of the final plot allotted to them under the Town Planning Scheme notified in 1995 there was only 3 mtrs. of road in front of their three Bungalows; and (ii) Unless, the common plot No.185/3 is handed over by the Appellants in terms of the Final Town C/LPA/1314/2016 JUDGMENT DT. 12.3.21 MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH v. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s) Planning Scheme, the said Plot No.185/3 cannot be allotted to the third party Jitendrabhai, whose plot adjacent to Shopping Centre (Plot No.318) is taken from said Jitendrabhai and thus, the development of the said area to this extent is stuck in this litigation.

8. Upon a harmonious reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Chapter 5 in conspectus thereof indicates the binding character of the Scheme, which takes care of the objections of the persons concerned at the initial stages, when the Draft Schemes are notified by the State Government. The argument raised by the Appellant that the Respondent Municipal Corporation in its initial stages viz. vide Minutes dated 26.9.1989 had decided to make variation in Town Planning Scheme No.3 and Final Plot No.186/2 belonging to the Appellant was included in the varied scheme on compassionate ground was not finally so given effect to by the State Government in the Preliminary Scheme or even Final Scheme and the objections raised by the Appellant were not considered. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. J.F. Mehta also emphasised that three Bungalows constructed by the Appellants were on the dead end of the Road and therefore, the Road in question in front of their houses or Bungalows could not be said to be public road and therefore, the widening of the same from 3 mtrs. width to 6 mtrs. width was not at all necessary as there was no ingress or outgress of any public members on that C/LPA/1314/2016 JUDGMENT DT. 12.3.21 MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH v. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s) Road except the family members of the Appellant only. He also submitted that no public purpose was served or could be served by the Appellants including part of their original Plot No.186/2 and later on marked as Plot No.185/3 as common plot as the same was only to be allotted or intended to be allotted to a third party Jitendrabhai and therefore, the Final Scheme notified on 19.5.1999 deserved to be varied allowing the construction of the Appellants' Bungalows to stand as it is.

Copy of these notices were also annexed with this Affidavit. Therefore, there is no merit in the said contention of the Appellants.

10. These contentions were vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the Respondents and they submitted that not only the Public Road in question deserved to be widened to 6 mtrs. as per the Final Scheme but it could not be claimed by the Appellants that the members of public road had no right of way or ingress or outgress on the said public road which they had partly encroached to leave only 3 mtrs. width of the road. They also refuted the right of the Appellants to retain common plot No.185/3 admeasuring 454 sq.mtrs. as unless the same is allotted to Jitendrabhai whose land over the Plot No.318 (Shopping Centre) developed by Nadiad Municipal Corporation is vacated, the public purpose would not be served. They further contended that Final Scheme notified by the State on 9.5.1999 cannot be C/LPA/1314/2016 JUDGMENT DT. 12.3.21 MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH v. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s) varied or altered to suit the personal conveniences of the land holders, especially those like the present Appellants who had encroached the part of the public land and had even constructed their Bungalows without proper approval of the Plans by the Competent Authority, so much so that even Nadiad Municipal Corporation had to file a suit for declaration and injunction against these Appellants in 1985 to prevent any construction on the said plot of land without the approval of the maps by the concerned authority and having lost in two round of litigations in that civil suit, the Appellant is now in the aforesaid Second Appeal before this Court and have also raised the construction in question.

11. We had heard this matter on 9.3.2021 and Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appeared with Mr. J.F. Mehta, learned counsel for the Appellant and we had passed the following order on 9.3.2021 and then kept the matter for today:

"1. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the Map and the latest Affidavit of the Petitioner­Appellant Mr.Manubhai Raichandbhai Shah dated 18.02.2021 and perused the site photographs also. We are prima facie of the opinion that had the matter been settled in terms of the Court C/LPA/1314/2016 JUDGMENT DT. 12.3.21 MANUBHAI RAICHANDBHAI SHAH v. NADIAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 other(s) Order dated 30.09.2019 amicably, in which, the Court gave a very reasonable suggestion to both the sides, the things would have settled by now but it seems that the Petitioner­Appellant has given a Representation in pursuance to the said Order dated 30.09.2019 not in tune with the Town Planning Scheme notified and were not willing to hand over the vacant possession of the plot No.185/3 (Common Plot) to the Nadiad Municipal Corporation, which was intended to be allotted to one Jitendrabhai whose present site a smaller strip type plot as shown in map behind the Shopping Centre on Plot No.318 shown in the Map could have been utilised for other public purposes.