JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. The present Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.4.2015, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application No.6210 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner – Appellant (Jignesh Ramanbhai Patel), which was directed against the order dated 22.1.2014 passed by the Junior Town Planner, Gandhinagar Town Development Authority, Gandhinagar, rejecting the application by which the regularization of the unauthorized construction was sought by the petitioner under the provisions of the newly enacted Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011.

2. The brief reason assigned by the Authority concerned in the impugned order dated 22.1.2014 is a oneliner, namely, that with respect to the property situated in Survey No.472/P, the applicant does not have the consent of the owner of the land in question for such regularization.

3. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Applicant claimed the said property under a Will executed by one Shantaben and there was a dispute with regard to the said Will raised from the side of Respondent No.3 – Lallubhai Mathurdas Patel, who also claimed a registered Will from the same Testator – Shantaben in his favour executed much prior in point of time. The said dispute is pending in the competent Civil Court between two private parties. The learned Single Judge, referring to Section 2(n) of the Act which defined the term 'Unauthorized Development' held that the regularization in such cases could not be done because the ownership rights of the Applicant were not clear.

4. In the present Intra-Court Appeal, Mr.Vimal Patel, learned counsel for the Appellant, urged that the Act of 2011, the vires of this Act have been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivlal K. Purohit & Others v. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.2865 of 2012, vide judgment dated 6.9.2012. He further submitted that the definition of the term 'Occupier' in Section 2(k), definition of 'Owner' in Section 2(l) and definition of term 'Unauthorized Development' in Section 2(n) are wide enough to cover the case of the present Petitioner – Appellant and his Application was expected to be decided on its own merits about the unauthorized development.

5. He further drew the attention of the Court towards the provisions of Section 5 and Section 15 of the said Act and on the basis of the same, he submitted that the present Petitioner – Appellant claimed to be the 'Owner' of the land and the construction in question on the basis of the said Will and irrespective of the challenge to the same in the competent Civil Court, his Application under this Act of 2011 deserves to be decided on its own merits.

6. He submitted that the Act clearly separates the right of ownership from the right to get the application for regularization of unauthorized development considered on its own merits and the provisions of the Act further clarify that such regularization, if any, granted under the provision of this Act, shall not be deemed to have decided any ownership rights of the unauthorized development in question.

7. The relevant provisions, which the learned counsel for the Petitioner – Appellant sought to rely for the purpose of his arguments are quoted below for ready reference :

“2(k) "occupier" means,–

(i) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;

(ii) an owner living in or otherwise using his land or building;

(iii) a rent free tenant;

(iv) a licensee in occupation of any land or building;

(v) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages or compensation for the use and occupation of any land or building;

2(l) “owner” means in relation to any property, includes any person who is, for the time being receiving or entitled to receive, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf o