SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Hansaben Ratubhai Prajapati – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 4216 Of 2023
Decided On : 11-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Chirag A. Prajapati, Kartikkumar K. Joshi.
For the Respondent: Ms. Jeenal Acharya, Mr. M.R. Bhatt Assisted By Akash N. Shah, G.H. Virk, Mr. Simranjitsingh H. Virk.

The public interest in the redevelopment scheme and the lack of infringement of the petitioners' fundamental or legal rights were the main legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Redevelopment - Housing Scheme - Gujarat Housing Board Act-1961, Section 60(a)(2) - The court dismissed the petition challenging the redevelopment scheme for 132 M.I.G., Surya Apartment, Part-3, Sola Road, Ahmedabad. The petitioners, owners and occupiers of the premises, objected to the scheme, alleging lack of consent and non-compliance with natural justice principles. However, the court found that 75% of the beneficiaries had consented to the redevelopment, and the majority of the members had agreed to the scheme. The court noted that the redevelopment was in the public interest and that the petitioners' objections were unjustified. The court also highlighted that the petitioners had been provided with the information they sought regarding the benefits of the redevelopment. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the public interest and the lack of infringement of the petitioners' fundamental or legal rights.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the action of the respondent authorities in announcing and proceeding with the scheme of redevelopment for the premises where they resided. They alleged lack of consent and non-compliance with natural justice principles. However, the majority of the beneficiaries had consented to the redevelopment, and the court found that the objections raised by the petitioners were unjustified. The court also noted that the petitioners had been provided with the information they sought regarding the benefits of the redevelopment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the objections raised by the petitioners were unjustified, as 75% of the beneficiaries had consented to the redevelopment, and the majority of the members had agreed to the scheme. The court also noted that the petitioners had been provided with the information they sought regarding the benefits of the redevelopment.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioners' objection to the redevelopment scheme, alleging lack of consent and non-compliance with natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the public interest in the redevelopment scheme and the lack of infringement of the petitioners' fundamental or legal rights. The court also highlighted that the petitioners had been provided with the information they sought regarding the benefits of the redevelopment.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the public interest and the lack of infringement of the petitioners' fundamental or legal rights.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have challenged the action of the redevelopment of the houses/flats situated at premises being 132, M.I.G., (o/o. 384 MIG), Surya Apartment, Part-3, Sola Road, Ahmedabad and also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Competent Officer in Case No. 103/2022 (duly produced at Annexure-A) and has also prayed to restrain the respondents from declaring or proceeding in any manner for redevelopment of the subject premises without the consent of the petitioners.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs:

    “a. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition.

b. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or directions quashing and setting aside the action of the redevelopment of the houses/flat situated at premises being 132, M.I.G., (o/o. 384 MIG), Surya Apartment Vibhag-3, Sola Road, Ahmedabad as well as be pleased to quashed and set aside order dated 06.02.2023 passed by Competent Officer in case no. 103/2022 annexed at annexure-A and further be pleased to restrain the respondents from declaring or proceeding in any manner for redevelopment of the subject premises without the consent of the petitioners;

c. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to clarify the scheme to be implemented with respect to houses of the petitioners on Revenue Survey Survey No. 141, 179, 180/2, T.P. no. 29, F.P. no. 356, 357, 358 Gujarat Housing Board at Wadaj.;

d. Pending the Petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation of the scheme and any other consequential proceedings including the eviction proceedings with respect to houses of the petitioners on Revenue Survey No. 141, 179, 180/2, T.P. no. 29, F.P. no. 356, 357, 358 Gujarat Housing Board at Wadaj.;

e. Grant Ad interim relief in terms of para 'd' above;

f. That any other and/or further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present petition may please be granted, in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition reads thus:

3.1. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent authorities in announcing and proceeding with the scheme of redevelopment of the premises, where the petitioners are legally residing since many years and without taking their consent, which is pre-requisite for any redevelopment scheme, the same being not duly done, then the entire action falls foul on the basis of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The action of the respondent authority in institution of compulsory redevelopment scheme, without there being any law for providing the same, the said exercise being de-hors the provision of law and without jurisdiction, be deserved to be set aside.

3.2. The petitioners are the owners and occupiers of the premises/the Scheme in question. The premises mentioned herein including the residence situated at 132, M.I.G., Surya Apartment, Part-3, Sola Road, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Scheme/ the said premises in question’ for short), the petitioners are individual house holders in the said scheme which was laid down and constructed by the Gujarat Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GHB’ for short) in the year 1986. The said Scheme has been constructed on Survey No. 141, 179, 180/2, Town Planning Scheme No. 29, Final Plot No. 356, 357, 358, Gujarat Housing Board at Wadaj, Ahmedabad. In the said scheme in all 132 houses. The petitioners herein came into occupation of the said premises on their execution of conveyance deeds in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Housing Board, 1961 r/w. GHB (disposal of Property) Regulations, 1974. Copy of the said sale deeds is duly produced at Annexure-B.

3.3. As per the said de

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top