SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Guj) 143

J.N.BHATT
MOTISEN SOMAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.C.URAIZI, A.J.PATEL

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2. Talati-cum-Mantri of village ghatlodia, Taluka City, Ahmedabad dated 27/01/1994 by filing this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners and occupants of land bearing survey No. 213, the said survey number came to be included in the Town Planning Scheme before 1985. The Scheme came into operation in 1976. The land in question was under final plot No. 16 and the land ultimately came to be allotted to the final plot is admeasuring 8. 348 sq. mtrs.

( 3 ) THE petitioners had applied for permission for development under Sec. 29 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. 1976 (the Act ). On scrutiny of the application for permission to develop submitted by the petitioners, the ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA ). Granted permission to develop the land in question. The permission was thus issued by AUDA by the order dated 1-3-1994. According to the case of the petitioners, they are entitled to proceed with the development of the land in question without waiting for permission under other








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top