AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) AS the subject matter of the petition as well as Misc. Civil Application [mca for short] is the same, they were heard together by us and now they are being disposed of by this common CAV judgment.

( 2 ) THE petition is filed by Smt. Kapilaben Ashokbhai Patel, who is also opponent no. 4 in the MCA, but in this judgment she is referred to as the petitioner. Applicant of the MCA is respondent no. 4 in the petition. Accordingly he is referred to as respondent no. 4 in this judgment. Rest of the parties are referred to in accordance with their position in the petition. (1) The petition is filed for claiming relief to the effect that appropriate direction be given to respondent no. 1 to issue notification appointing Appellate Officer/authority for the development area of Gandhinagar township in accordance with the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Gujarat Regulation of Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. By way of interim relief, it is prayed that the execution of order contained in communication dated 24th September, 2004 and order dated 24th September, 2004 of respondent no. 2 be stayed pending final disposal of the petition and also to restrain the agents and servants of respondent no. 2 from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner pursuant to notice dated 9th November, 2004. (2) MCA has been filed by respondent no. 4 requesting this Court to take appropriate action against opponents nos. 1 to 18 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and also to order the prosecution for filing false affidavit and to direct the petitioner and the concerned authorities to remove the unauthorized construction.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she had purchased plot no. 493/2 admeasuring 181. 50 sq. mtrs. situated in sector no. 22, Gandhinagar township for total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- by a registered sale-deed. The said plot was purchased from one Ishvarsinh Baldevsinh Vaghela who had purchased the said plot at the public auction which was sanctioned by Additional Collector, Gandhinagar vide his order dated 11th February, 1976. The plot was sold to Ishvarsinh on the condition that it was to be utilized for residential purpose and accordingly he had put up construction for residential unit on the plot. It is the case of the petitioner that she converted the user from residence to commercial and constructed the existing structure on it which is a commercial one. The same was objected to by respondent no. 4 and at his instance proceedings for violation of building regulations were initiated against the petitioner. According to petitioner, the said proceedings ended in a settlement between the parties upon payment of Rs. 40,000/- to respondent no. 4 by way of damages and in view of the settlement, the Dy. Secretary, Revenue Dept. dismissed the Revision Application filed by respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, thereafter respondent no. 3 the Collector, Gandhinagar initiated proceedings against the petitioner for removal of the unauthorized construction put up by the petitioner on the plot in question. Against the order of Collector dated 18th March, 2000 the petitioner preferred Revision Application before respondent no. 1 i. e. the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Dept. and along with it, application for interim relief was also filed. Respondent no. 1 by order dated 15th June, 2000 rejected the application for interim relief, against which the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Appln. No. 7708 of 2000. Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 6th February, 2001 dismissed the petition in limine and vacated the ad-interim relief granted earlier. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge being Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 2001, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench by its order dated 20th February, 2001 to enable the petitioner to resort to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document