The court emphasized that the petitioner should approach the appropriate authority if an adverse order is passed by the Government, as the matter is pending with the Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

“5. The petitioner is having no other adequate remedy, approaches to Your Lordships and prays that a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari and/ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

A. To quash and set aside the Resolution No. 296 dated 30.1.2017 passed by the Deesa Nagar Palika (respondent No.3) in its General Board Meeting (Annexure A) and further restrain the Nagar Palika from taking such action contrary to the sanctioned draft development plan of the State Government as per Notification dated 7.1.2016 (Annexure-H);

B. Be pleased to direct the Collector, Banaskantha to reconsider his application for aforesaid land bearing Survey Nos. 103 and 104 for non-agricultural residential use as all the Authorities below have recommended to sanction such plan and pass necessary order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;

C. Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;

D. Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha rejecting the revised plan for Survey No. 103 paiki, Seat No.14, City Survey No. 4898 admeasuring 3280 sq.mt and Survey No. 104 paiki, Seat No.22, City Survey No. 4899 admeasuring 4056 sq. Mt for residential purpose at Annexure – 01 and 02;

6. Pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to-

(a) to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the Resolution No. 296 dated 30.1.2017 passed by the Deesa Nagar Palika (respondent No.3) in its General Board Meeting (Annexure-A);

(b) Be pleased to direct the Collector to take decision in the Application of the petitioner for sanctioning the land for Non-agricultural residential use for the land bearing Survey Nos. 103 and 104 situated within the territorial limits of Deesa Nagar Palika as early as possible within the stipulated time and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(c) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit proper n the interest of justice and in the facts of the case;

(d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha rejecting the revised plan for Survey No. 103 paiki, Seat No.14, City Survey No. 4898 admeasuring 3280 sq.mt and Survey No. 104 paiki, Seat No.22, City Survey No. 4899 admeasuring 4056 sq. Mt for residential purpose at Annexure – 01 and 02 and direct the Collector, Banaskantha to sanction the revise development plan of the petitioner for aforesaid lands.”

2. The Brief facts of the present case, as emerged from the petition, are as under :

2.1 The petitioner is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No. 103-P, admeasuring 3280 sq. Mtr and 104-P admeasuring 4056 sq. Mtrs which have been respectively given City Survey Nos. 4898 and 4899. It is contended that the other lands from the said Survey Numbers have already been converted into Non-agricultural use and most of the lands have been sold to various persons. According to the petitioner, on 24.4.1994, the State Government published the Draft Scheme in which 30 mtrs equivalent to 100 feet wide road was shown in the Draft Plan in the year 1994, which passes through the land of the petitioner and other i.e. Survey Nos. 102, 103, 104, 106 and 141 situated within the territorial limits of Deesa Nagar Palika.

2.2 It is contended that against the said action on the part of the respondent- Authority, the petitioner along with other had filed Special Civil Application No. 7065 of 1994 before this Court and vide order dated 18.11.2010, this Court allowed the said petition and quashed and set aside t