MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

1. This group of petitions involves similar questions of law and facts. The petitions have therefore been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

2. Essentially what is in challenge in this group of petitions is the prescription of road line by the Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation The petitioners stand to lose part of their land/buildings in such road line. They have therefore, challenged eviction notices issued by the Corporation under Section 213 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act(BPMC Act for short).The petitioners have also challenged the vires of Section 210(1)(a) of the BPMC Act.

3. Few relevant facts may be noted at this stage. Since facts involved in all the petitions are substantially similar, they may be noticed as stated in Special Civil Application No. 7207/1998.

3.1 The petitioner is the owner of superstructure i.e. a bungalow constructed on a plot of land alloted to him by one Brahman Mitra Mandal Cooperative Housing Society. As a member of the society, the petitioner occupies sub-plot No.1 of Final Plot No. 707/A of Town Planning Scheme No.3, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The plot abuts on a road between Ashram Road to Ambawadi Circle. The existing road is 60 feet wide. The Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in exercise of power under Section 210(1)(a) of the BPMC Act, prescribed regular line of the street vide his resolution dated 10.5.2007 which had the effect of widening the street to 100ft.

3.2 Since part of the plot of the petitioner falls within the newly prescribed street line, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation issued eviction notice dated 7.9.2007 in exercise of power under Section 213 of the BPMC Act calling upon the petitioner to surrender the possession of part of his plot falling within the road line within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the said notice (produced at Annexure-A to the petition), it is also stated that after handing over the possession, the Municipal Corporation will take appropriate steps for grant of compensation under Section 216 of the BPMC Act.

3.3 The petitioner lodged his objections to the said notice vide his communication dated 19.11.2007(Annexure-B to the petition). The letter of the petitioner was replied to by the Corporation vide communication dated 28.11.2007(Annexure-C to the petition).

3.4 The present petition is therefore, filed essentially challenging the action of the respondents in laying down a street line by virtue of which existing street is widened from 60 ft. to 100 ft. The petitioner has further challenged eviction notice dated 7.9.2007 as also the Constitutional validity of Section 210(1)(a) of the BPMC Act.

4. Facts of rest of the petitions are substantially similar except that in some cases, the petitioners are the owners/occupants of constructed premises which fall within the proposed road widening.

5. On behalf of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, affidavit dated 13.5.2008 has been filed in which it is stated inter-alia that road leading from Hotel Inder Residency to Ambawadi circle is covered under the Town Planning Scheme No.3, Ellisbridge, which was sanctioned on 15.3.1945. Under the Town Planning Scheme, said road is of 60 ft. width. Said road is levelled, paved and maintained by the Corporation and is thus a public street . The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation for the first time prescribed road line for the street in exercise of powers under Section 210(1)(a) of the BPMC Act by resolution dated 10.5.2007. Similarly, road between Town Hall to Madalpur Garnala was also a Town Planning Road of 60 ft. width. For this road also, regular line of the street was prescribed for the first time under Section 210(1)(a) of the BPMC Act extending the street to a width of 100 ft. It is stated that as per the revised Development Plan sanctioned under Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 2002(Town Planning Act for sho