IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J.Shastri, J.
Krupeshbhai N.Patel - Appellant
Vs.
Vadodara Urban Development Authority - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 11139 of 2021
Decided On : 08-06-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32, 226, 300A, 14, 19(1)(g) – Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 – Section 65 – Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – Section 48, 54, 52, 29, – Town Planning Act – Section 41 – Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary – Petitioner has prayed for reliefs – Whether said scheme would be sanctioned with or without modification or subject to what conditions which may be imposed upon or it could also be refused to sanction it or send it back to appropriate authority – Held, Petitioner has also not projected in any manner as to whether plots have been sold or not, which authority came to knowledge on basis of letter written to RERA authority by petitioner and not from petitioner nor from memo – Even petitioner has not disputed that there is a consistent practice in respondent VUDA that all such similarly situated developers and persons are following such practice while getting development permission of making payment and handing over advance cheques and this practice is also prevailing in other appropriate authorities as well and hence, on basis of this sheer conduct of petitioner, this Court would not like to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction, otherwise same would tantamount to be encouraging a foul play upon authority and as such, without expressing anything on legal issues, which is tried to be projected in petition, leaving it open for appropriate case in future – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 and Article 300A read with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
(i) to declare that the respondent authority - VUDA is legally not entitled and justified in demanding betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc., at the time of preparing and sanctioning the draft Town Planning Scheme and they cannot raise the demand of the said amount or the charges till the State Government under Section 65 of the Act:
(ii) to permanently restrain the respondent authority from depositing and encashing 12 monthly post-dated cheques & 12 undated blank cheques for interest handed over by the petitioner for total amount o Rs.18,25,05,245/- and also may be pleased to quash and set aside the action of the respondent authority in raising demand of Rs.18,25,05,245/-;
(iii) to declare that the demand of 12 post dated cheques and 12 undated blank cheques for the amount of interest by the respondent authority is unjust, arbitrary, illegal and improper.
(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authority from depositing and encashing 12 post-dated cheques and 12 undated blank cheques fro interest handed over by the petitioner on 6th July, 2021 towards betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc.;
(C) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper may be granted in the interest of justice;"
2. The background of facts which has given rise to the present petition is that the petitioner along with others had purchased land bearing Block Nos. 44 and 69 situated at Village Khanpur, Vadodara by way of registered sale deed dated 20.02.2008 and 17.05.2012 respectively and by virtue of such execution of sale transaction, the petitioner and others became exclusive owners and occupiers of the land in question. The learned Collector, Vadodara, was pleased to grant N.A. permission over the land in question vide order dated 09.04.2012 and 17.09.2012 respectively in exercise of powers under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The respondent authorities also granted development permission to the aforementioned lands on 13.12.2012 and it has also issued a plinth check certificate on 28.02.2013.
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently revised lay-out plan and building permission was also granted by the respondent authorities on 03.03.2014 and the plinth check certificate was also published on 24.09.2015. The said revised development permission was then renewed by the authority on 24.09.2015. Subsequently, on 01.09.2018, the petitioner also made an application for revised development permission and for that purpose an amount of Rs.2,59,755/- was also deposited with the respondent authority and the petitioner has also applied for plinth check certificate on 07.12.2018 and towards that an amount of Rs.8,520/- came to be deposited. These amounts were calculated by the respondent authority itself and all due procedure were also completed, according to the petitioner.
2.2. The petitioner has further asserted that on 21.02.2019, intention to prepare a Town Planning Scheme No. 24/A was declared by the appropriate authority, but according to the petitioner, the draft Town Planning Scheme in respect of it has not been sanctioned by the State Government under Section 48 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the same is still lying with at that stage. So in substance, the stand of the petitioner is that the said draft Town Planning Scheme (Musadda) has become at a stage of approval by the State Government and it is not certain that at this stage as to whe
Babulal Badriprasad Varma v. Surat Municipal Corporation reported in 2008 (3) GLH 137
Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 628
Union of India Vs. Susaka Private Limited and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 182
Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449
Point of Law - As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he sh....
The Court upheld the Assistant Estate Officer's eviction order under the Town Planning Act, confirming that petitioners' objections were unsubstantiated given their failure to challenge the Town Plan....
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.6....
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.