Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: common plot in Chandrakalaben Mansukhlal Popat vs Jamnagar Urban Development Authority & ... on 25 April, 2014Matching Fragments
2. In the Public Interest Litigation, out of which the present application arises, the grievance of the writ-petitioner was that a Co- operative Society, the respondent No.3 therein, entered into a development agreement with the respondent No.4, the Builder, by which it was agreed that the respondent No.4 would construct 26 shops of around 125 to 150 sq. ft. on the common plot of the Society facing the main road and that the respondent No.3 has neither obtained any permission to enter into such an agreement nor has the respondent No.4 obtained any permission to put up construction of 26 shops on the common plot of the Society. The further grievance of the petitioner was that the Jamnagar Urban Development Authority although initiated some proceedings in the year 2012 for demolition of the shops by issuing notice under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976, thereafter, it failed to act in accordance with law.
8. After hearing Mr. Buch, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, and after going through the material on record, we find that indisputably, there was unauthorized construction and, at the same time, the construction of the shop rooms on the common plot of the Society was also violative of the provisions of law. In such circumstances, we, by our order dated 3rd March 2014, passed in WP PIL No. 347 of 2013, disposed of the PIL by directing the respondent No.1, the Jamnagar Area Development Authority, to proceed ahead immediately with the implementation and execution of the notice dated 6th March 2013 issued under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, for demolition of the unauthorized construction of the 26 shops built on the common plot of the Society. As before passing of the final judgment in the PIL we had already disposed of the application of the present applicant, we did not take into consideration the prayer of the petitioner for refund of money which was filed after conclusion of the hearing of the PIL.