IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Sukeshi Vijaybhai Bhatt - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 9466 of 2019 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 07-05-2021
Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Possession - Town Planning Scheme – Deduction of land - Seeking direction quashing and setting aside impugned T.P Scheme being Town Planning Scheme (Maninagar Extension ) varied so far as it relates to Final Plot and be pleased to hold and declare that entry of reservation made in ''F'' form in the land of original F.P. is also illegal and be pleased to delete same and be pleased to delete name of appropriate authority and reference of post and telegraph department and slum clearance board from ''F'' form of F.P. and be pleased to direct authority to enter name of petitioners in ''F'' form and all other relevant record - Authorities may be directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of same as per provisions of Act,2013 and be pleased to direct authorities not to disturb possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their family members over subject land unless and until petitioner are paid compensation determine as per Land Acquisition Act, 2013 as per prevalent market rate.
Finding of the court: It emerges that land in question belonging to father of petitioners was sought to be acquired in year 1957 under land acquisition Act by initiating land acquisition proceedings for purpose of slum clearance housing board and road. However, thereafter, TP Scheme was proposed by AMC in year 1966. At that point of time when State Government sanctioned Draft Town Planning Scheme in year 1966, there was no question of any reservation of land for purpose of slum clearance and housing board and road as land acquisition proceedings were already initiated which were under challenge before this Court - Restoration of unutilised land acquired for public purpose cannot be granted as it is axiomatic that land acquired for a public purpose would be utilised for any other public purpose though use of it was intended for original public purpose and it is not intended that any land which remained unutilised, should be restituted to original owner - Petitioners have never applied for variation of such varied Town Planning Scheme which has become part of the statute. In such circumstances, prayers made by petitioners to quash and set aside varied Town Planning Scheme qua Final Plot cannot be acceded to.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.B.Munshi for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ishan Joshi for the respondent No.1State, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Maulin Raval for Raval & Trivedi Associates and learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Waghela for learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi for respondent No.2, learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Devang Vyas for respondent No.5, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for respondent No.6 through video conference.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned T.P Scheme being Town Planning Scheme, Ahmedabad24 (Maninagar Extension ) varied so far as it relates to Final Plot No.64/4 admeasuring 7289 sq.matrs.and be pleased to hold and declare that entry of reservation made in ''F'' form in the land of original F.P.No 64 and 71 is also illegal and be pleased to delete the same and be pleased to delete the name of appropriate authority and reference of post and telegraph department and slum clearance board from the ''F'' form of F.P.No.64/4 and be pleased to direct the authority to enter the name of the petitioners in ''F'' form and all other relevant record of F.P.No.64/4.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to further hold and declare that if the subject land being F.P No.64/4 admeasuring 7289 sq.mtr.is required for any public purpose then in that case, the authorities may be directed to initiate the proceedings for acquisition of the same as per the provisions of the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 and be pleased to direct the authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their family members over the subject land unless and until the petitioner are paid compensation determine as per the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 as per the prevalent market rate.
(D) During the pendency and till final disposal of the petition, by way of interim relief, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct service the respondent not to interfere with actual physical possession of the petitioners over the subject land being F.P.No.64/4 admeasuring 7289 sq.mtr. Of T.P.Scheme, Ahmedabad24 (Maninagar Extension) Varied and not to deal with the subject land in any manner whatsoever and pleased to direct the authorities to maintain the status quo in respect of the subject land.
(F) Any other relief deemed just and proper may pleased the granted in the interest of justice.”
3. The petitioners and the family members are the owners of land bearing Final Plot No. 64/4 admeasuring 7289 sq. mtrs. alloted in T.P. Scheme Ahmedabad24( Maninagar Extension-Varied) situated in Maninagar area of Ahmedabad city. According to the petitioners, the land in question is mutated in the name of the petitioners and the family members in the revenue record in village Form no. 7/12 of village RajpurHirpur, Taluka Maninagar, District Ahmedabad.
4. The land admeasuring 18870 sq mtrs. situated in Survey no. 217 and land admeasuring 1720 sq mtrs. situated in survey no. 448, total land admeasuring 20590 sq mtrs. situated in Sim of village RajpurHirpur, Taluka Maninagar, District Ahmedabad belonged to one Chunilal Chhaganlal Bhatt who was predecessor in title of the petitioners and after his demise, the said lands were inherited by his legal heirs.
5. The aforesaid land of survey nos.217 and 448 was acquired by respondent no.2Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (For short “AMC”) by passing resolution no.63 of 1957 dated 20.11.1957. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was iss
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1996(6) SCC 405
Mohanlal Nanabhai Choksy v. State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1890
Surat Panjrapole v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2001 Guj 316
Kanjibhai Dahyabhai Malsattar v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(2) GLR 1649
Babulal Badriprasad Varma v. Surat Municipal Corporation reported in 2008(12) SCC 401
Satyadev Parasnath Pandey v. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1475
Ramanbhai Hargovinddas Limbachia v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016(3) GLR 2695
Bal Shikshan Samiti Trust v. State of Gujarat reported in 2011(3) GLR 2681
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & anr. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 405
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.