IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Sun Builders Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 23012 of 2019 With Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2020
Decided on : 22-12-2022
Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 - Section 40, (3)(jj), 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 67, 68, 69 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 9 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Illegally and forcibly trying to take possession of land - Challenge arbitrary action - Land was laid out for Road purpose - Seeks to challenge arbitrary and illegal action on part of respondents-Authority, more particularly, Respondent for illegally and forcibly trying to take possession of land – Held, From pleadings of petitioner that Town Planning Scheme started by AUDA was not sanctioned by State and ultimately, as entire area came in City, due to extension of city limits, therefore, State Government has directed AMC to frame Town Planning Scheme, as per existing land - All these averments of petitioner clearly reveal that at relevant point of time, portion of land was laid out for Road purpose and, therefore, by virtue of Section 48A of Act, such land would automatically vest into appropriate authority - It is pertinent to note that petitioner has not disclosed fact that earlier it has signed agreement and filed undertaking before AUDA - This fact has been brought on record by respondent-Corporation - Thus, there is suppression of fact by petitioner, which dis-entitles him to claim equitable relief - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents-Authority, more particularly, the Respondent - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for illegally and forcibly trying to take possession of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.387/4 admeasuring 4039 Sq. Mtrs owned by the petitioner herein, under the guise of showing the lesser area of the said land as O.P. No. 74 admeasuring 3660 Sq. Mtrs in the draft Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Ghatlodia - Sola - Chandlodiya), inspite of the fact that the preliminary town planning scheme is still not prepared and pending with the Town Planning Officer, appointed by the State Government under Section 50 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 ("the Act of 1976" for short).
2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-
2.1 That the land bearing Revenue Survey No.387 was huge parcel of land admeasuring approximately 25091 Sq. Mtrs. However, it appears that thereafter the same was divided into 4 part being Revenue Survey Nos. 387/1, 387/2, 387/3 and 387/4 situated at mouje Sola, Taluka Daskrol, District Ahmedabad. It is stated that so far as the present issue is concerned, the same pertains to the land bearing Revenue Survey No.387/4 situated at mouje Sola, Taluka Daskrol, Dist. Ahmedabad. It is stated that the land in question was originally admeasuring 6981 sq. meters (1 Acre - 29 Guntha) which was owned by the predecessors in title of the petitioner.
2.2 It is stated that thereafter between 1960 to 1970 the land in question being Revenue Survey No. 387/4 admeasuring 1 Acre and 29 Gunthas was purchased by the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein viz. Vanmalidas Parmanand from whom the petitioner had purchased and his name was mutated in the revenue Record.
2.3 Thereafter it appears that the portion of the land in question went into road widening for Khodiyar-Sarkhej Road in the year 1974-75. It is submitted that due to the same, out of the total holding of land admeasuring 6981 sq. mtrs (1 Acre and 29 Gunthas), an area admeasuring 2012 sq. mtrs. was deducted for road widening and area admeasuring 4969 sq. mtrs. was left out being owned by the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein viz. Vanmalidas Parmanand. It is stated that same was even given effect into the 7/12 extract vide entry No. 4419 in the year 1993, which came to be certified by the competent Authority.
2.4 It is stated that since the Respondent - State Government wanted to acquire portion of the land for expanding the Sarkhej Gandhinagar National Highway No.8A, out of the total area of the land admeasuring 4969 sq. mtrs. of land of the petitioner bearing Revenue Survey No.387/4, land admeasuring 830 sq. mtrs. was further acquired by Notification issued by the respondent - State Government.
2.5 It is stated that pursuant thereto 'Kami Jastak Patrak' was prepared by the competent Authority wherein the area of the land of Revenue Survey No.387/4 was shown as land admeasuring 4039 sq. mtrs. i.e. after deducting the land admeasuring 830 sq. mtrs. from the total area of the land admeasuring 4969 sq. mtrs (the same is error since it should be 4139 Sq. Mtrs).
2.6 It appears that simultaneously since the area was within the limit of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), the AUDA declared its intention under Section 41 of the Act, 1976 dated 12.10.1999 to frame the Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Ghatlodia-Sola-Chandlodiya) and the said intention was published in the Official Gazette on 20.4.2000
2.7 It is stated that in the said Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 28 (Ghatlodia-Sola-Chandlodiya), at the relevant point of time, in the year 2000, land bearing Revenue Survey no. 387/4 was given O.P.No. 35, however, area shown against the said Original Plot was erroneously shown as 3660 Sq. Mtrs., instead of actual area admeasuring 4139 Sq. Mtrs., and in lieu of the same since Original Plot area was shown as lesser area, after deducting 50% from
Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1
Maneklal Chhotalal and Others v. M.G.Makwana and Others
State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others reported in AIR 1969 SC 634
Authority under the Act of 1976 exercises a quasi-judicial power which implies observing of the principles of natural justice and to conclude that the occupants are not entitled to occupy the plots. ....
Point of law: There remains no shadow of doubt that where the draft scheme has been sanctioned by the Government, the lands required for the purposes specified in the clauses (c), (f), (g) or (h) of ....
Land acquired for a public purpose can be utilised for any other public purpose and once possession of land in taken and land is vested in Municipality free from all encumbrances, restitution of surp....
Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings conducted before their purchase, especially if original owners did not contest validity, supporting clean hands doctrine.
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.