Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that there is one common plot situated in the middle of the society which is adjacent to original plot Nos. 12 and 25 and the same is being used for social and other functions by the members of the society. The society is also having excess land in different parts of the society.

2.3. It is further stated that respondent no.1 was of the intention to prepare Town Planning Scheme No.12 and therefore the said scheme was sanctioned by Notification dated 10.08.1998. It is alleged that though the petitioner was affected by the said Town Planning Scheme, hearing was not given to the society before sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme. It is stated that the Government has sanctioned the Town Planning Scheme on 04.03.2014 by which Ring Road having width of 45 meters was sanctioned on 8 plots of original plot Nos. 57 and 58. As per the said scheme, out of said 8 plot holders, 4 members have been allotted land on common plot of the society, whereas other four members have been allotted land on the internal road of the society. It is, therefore, alleged that the action of the respondent authority in allotting the land to 4 members on the common plot of the society is illegal and therefore the petitioner filed the captioned petition in which the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.B. Naik assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Umang R. Vyas for the appellant - petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D.M. Devnani for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik mainly contended that before sanctioning the Town Planning Scheme, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to the petitioner society. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent authorities could not have allotted the final plots to 8 members of the petitioner society in common plot and on the internal roads of the society. In fact the common plot is used by the other members of the society for social and other functions. The said common plot is kept by the society as per the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time. Relying upon the map produced at page 19 of the compilation, it is contended that the respondent authority has kept certain portion of the land near to the petitioner society for sale for residential purpose. The 4 members who are given the plots in the common plot can be accommodated in the land which is kept for sale for the purpose of residence. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the aforesaid important aspect of the matter and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.

11. From the record and map/sketch produced by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, it is further revealed that 45 meters wide Ring Road is to be constructed from 8 plots of the members of the petitioner society. Such affected persons were accommodated in the petitioner society itself by giving them alternate accommodation in the common plot as well as internal road of the society. The petitioner society has no grievance with regard to allotment of plots to 5 members on the internal road of the society. However, the main grievance is with regard to allotment of plots to three members in the common plot on the ground that common plot is being used by the other members of the petitioner society for social and other functions.

14. With regard to contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the map produced at page 19 of the compilation, that there is an open space in the Town Planning Scheme which is kept for residential purpose and three members to whom the plots have been allotted in the common plot of the appellant - petitioner society can be accommodated in the said open space is concerned, the said contention is also misconceived because the said place is kept for sale for residence under the Town Planning Scheme and once the Scheme is finalized and sanctioned by the State Government, it is not permissible to change the location. The variation of the Scheme can be done only by the State Government as per the provisions contained in Section 70 of the Act.