The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference at the stage of implementation of a sanctioned preliminary scheme and the requirement for the authority to consider objections or representations made by affected parties.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the learned advocate Mr. Kuntal A. Joshi for the petitioners.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order/ communication dated 16.01.2023 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure A) in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this appeal, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to suspend operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order/ communication dated 16.01.2023 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure A) in the interest of justice,

(C) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this appeal, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their officers, agents and servants from taking any coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to impugned the impugned order/ communication dated 16.01.2023 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure A) in the interest of justice;

(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this appeal, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to maintain status quo prevailing as on today, in the interest of justice;

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs in favour of the Petitioners as deemed fit in the interest of Justice.

3. On perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioners has challenged the order dated 16.01.2023 which is an order passed pursuant to the notice issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for implementation of Town Planning Scheme No. 85 (Vatva 5) in respect of revenue survey no. 865 + 866 for which final plot no. 97 is allotted.

4. Once the preliminary scheme was sanctioned, a notice under section 67 of the Town Planning Act was given and thereafter, a notice under section 68 r/w Rule 33 of the Town Planning Rules was issued against the petitioners against which the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 6512 of 2021 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 03.10.2022 and the petitioners was granted liberty to file appropriate representation / objection / application before the Corporation Town Planning Officer of the Corporation and the authority was directed to decide the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the settled legal position.

5. Till the representation was decided, the Corporation or its officer concerned was directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the petitioners. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Jasani for the petitioners disclosed that on 04.02.2023, the date on which the petitioners preferred this petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2023 whereby pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application NO. 6512 of 2021 vide order dated 03.10.2022 after hearing the petitioners, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation passed an order on 16.01.2023 and rejected the application / representation / objection of the petitioners.

7. The same day, the petitioner preferred a Civil Suit as well before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad being Regular Civil Suit No. 124 of 2023 and the same is pending before City Civil Court at Ahmedabad.

8. Even after, disclosing the aforesaid fact, learned advocate Mr. Jasani insisted for hearing of this petition as the suit is preferred by only Noorbhai Ganibhai Modan whereas the petitioner is preferred by, in all, 19 persons and therefore, he insisted that the petition may be heard on merits.

9. Though the preliminary scheme has been sanctioned and for its implementation, a notice was already given under section 68 r/w Rule 33 by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and which was subject matter of challenge in the earlier round of litigation and though the petitioners were once again heard pursuant to the Court’s order, an order rejecting the application is passed, learned advocate