JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Viral K.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for respondent No.1-State, Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Raj A.Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent No.3.

2. This petition challenges the inaction of the respondent No.2- Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in not granting development permission for the land owned by the petitioner bearing Survey No. 13/1 admeasuring 12620 sq mtrs of Village Makarba Taluka City District Ahmadabad.

3. Upon hearing the matter on 11.08.2020, this Court was pleased to issue notice for final disposal while granting interim direction which was to decide the application of the petitioner dated 01/10.07.2020 (Annexure-A to the petition).

3.1 On the returnable date, the Corporation, in compliance of the direction of this Court placed on record along with its reply affidavit, the order dated 13.08.2020, by which it mandated inter alia joint signatures/consent of co-owners of the land in question i.e. Respondent Nos. 5-20 for the purposes of grant of development permission to the petitioners. Aggrieved by such order dated 13.08.2020, the petitioners by virtue of a draft amendment assailed the said order, when after, both the contesting parties were heard at length.

4. Mr. Viral Shah, appearing for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the record of the petition and contended that the land in question originally Survey No. 13 admeasured 13456 sq mtrs. a part thereof i.e. admeasuring 12620 of the total area, as per his submission was sold to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through registered sale deed dated 03.11.2004, which transaction also stood reflected in the revenue record through Entry No. 9662. He has submited that such part so purchased was sought to be identified as Survey No. 13/1, and after hak durasti of such Survey No. 13/1 came to be reflected in the revenue records.

4.1 Mr. Shah, learned advocate further submits that the Survey No. 13/1 was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 21.03.2007. That in the town planning records, Survey Nos. 13/1 and 13/2, for the reasons best known to the town planning authorities was reconstituted and identified as Final Plots 9/1 and 9/2. He would, but, assert that despite such position, there stood no dispute between the petitioners and respondent nos. 5-20 as regards the extent of their respective ownership of the lands in question. It is submitted that the extent of the land owned by the petitioner as per Pages 24 and 47. Such demarcation is pictorially depicted in the map, produce at page 79 in the record of the petition. It is contended that the map when read with Form F of the property in question together with the sale deed reveals that the area enclosed in points A-B-C-D and G-H-I-J admeasuring 7572 sq mtrs are owned by the petitioners whereas the area enclosed by C-D-E-F admeasuring 502 sq mtrs. are held by the Respondent Nos. 5-20. It is contended that these points earmarking the respective areas owned by the petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 5-20 are particularly superimposed upon the map provided by the Corporation – page 73 to eliminate any probability of slightest discrepancy.

4.2 It is contended by learned advocate that the extent of the land owned by petitioners was distinctly demarcated and with which position the Respondent Nos. 5-20, who were the joint owners of the land would also not dispute. It is submitted that with a view to enjoy the property in the form of land in question, the petitioner, applied for seeking development permission before the Corporation. As per petitioner, initially the Corporation exhibited inaction in processing such application whilst insisting for an NOC from the Respondent No. 5-20, which constrained the petitioner to prefer the present petition. Such insistence of the Corporation was later transposed into order dated 13.08.2020, when it decided the application of the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued