Nirmalaben Kanaiyalal Shah & 6 vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 29 September, 2015
As far as procedure
prescribed under the Act and as held by the
Apex Court in the case of M/s. Babulal & Co. &
Page 14 of 20
HC-NIC Page 14 of 20 Created On Wed Oct 07 00:16:21 IST 2015
C/SCA/10488/2015 ORDER
Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in
1985 (2) GLR 883 is concerned, it clearly
transpires from the contentions raised by the
petitioners themselves that the said procedure
is already followed by the respondent
authorities. In addition to that, it appears
that even the State Government, while
considering the application filed by the
petitioners at the stage of the preliminary
scheme as provided under Section 52 of the Act,
was pleased to direct the Town Planning Officer
as well as the Corporation to make proper
investigation. Even at the cost of repetition,
it requires to be noted that by a
communication/order dated 3.8.2011, the Town
Planning Officer has also considered the said
communication of the State Government dated
22.7.2011 and has threadbare considered all the
objections which were raised by the petitioner
through Mr. Anil Jani and has taken a conscious
decision which is taken into consideration by
the State Government while sanctioning the
Page 15 of 20
HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Wed Oct 07 00:16:21 IST 2015
C/SCA/10488/2015 ORDER
scheme even under Section 65 of the Act. The
learned advocate for the petitioners has not
been able to point out that there is any
procedural error committed either by the Town
Planning Officer or the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation as well as the State Government in
constituting the preliminary scheme or
sanctioning of the same or its implementation.