Point of Law : State Government is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on merits, after considering the objections and suggestions, if any, received and considering sec.65 of the Act.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kurvin Desai for the respondent-State, learned advocates Mr. Adil Mirza for respondent No.1 and Mr. A.S. Vakil for respondent No.4 waive service of notice of Rule.

2. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, common grievance is tried to be raised. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have requested the Court to take up both the matters together and dispose of by common order. Accordingly, the Court has considered the request and treated Special Civil Application No.178 of 2019 as a lead matter for sake of convenience.

3. So far as the lead matter, i.e. Special Civil Application No.178 of 2019 is concerned, the same is filed by four petitioners on the premise that they are the members of the respondent No.4 society and they are owners and occupiers of plot Nos.139, 140, 129 and 128 in Shangrila village and by way of registered sale deeds, they have become owner and occupier. The total area of the original plot of respondent No.4 society, as a whole, was 1,59,257 Sq. Mtrs. and the same was reconstituted and allotted Final Plot, admeasuring 1,30,618 Sq. Mtrs. and Form No.F came to be issued by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA).

4. It is the case of the petitioners that Draft Town Plan (Ghuma) was submitted for its sanction to respondent No.3 on 24.6.2011 after statutory deduction of 17.98% from the original plot. The deduction is required to be made in proportion from all plots allotted by the society to its plot holders while submitting the Draft Town Planning Scheme for sanction.

5. The petitioners have asserted that respondent No.4 society has written a letter on 28.2.2011 to the petitioner that the Draft Town Planning Scheme is going to be published by AUDA and the society has already raised objection on 13.9.2010 and accordingly, informed the petitioners to submit their respective objections. The petitioners have separately tendered their objections against the proposed deduction from the land practically about more than 50% (upto 60% for Town Planning Road) by virtue of Section 40 in respect of making Town Planning Scheme, which provides for allotting appropriate land in course of development likely to be used for residential or commercial or industrial or for building purposes by making provision for allotment of reservation of land for the road (Section 40(3)(e)(jj) and as per the amended provision, allotment of land from total area covered under the scheme is to the extent of 15% for the road. The said objections were written on 11.3.2011 by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, whereas the petitioner No.3 has raised objection before respondent No.1 vide communication dated 14.3.2011. Further objections also came to be sent to the respondent No.2 on 8.4.2011. Again detailed objections were tendered before respondent No.2 on 8.4.2011 for consideration against the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.2 (Ghuma). Additionally, yet another representation also came to be made on 25.4.2011 to the respondent No.2 for kind consideration, but same have not been dealt with at all and according to the petitioners, these objections have remained undecided and kept as it is, at the stage of preparation of the Draft Town Planning Scheme and at the stage of sanction of Draft Town Planning Scheme. Copy of the letter dated 30.8.2016 is attached to the petition compilation. The petitioners have asserted that after approaching the respondent authority, again personally even joint objections have also been tendered on 12.10.2016 and on 24.10.2016 by the respective petitioners with a further letter by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 17.10.2018, but despite repeated representations having been made, same have not been responded at all. If these representations are not to be dealt with, like this, according to the petitioners, there will be an irreversible situation likely to be created since the authorities have threatened the petitioners and informed t