The Town Planning Scheme is binding, and the respondent-Corporation is authorized to remove unauthorized constructions without further notice, as per Sections 68 and 69 of the T.P. Act.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Citing extreme urgency in the matter, and since the regular Bench is not available, we have taken up the matter today, as it was mentioned that the unauthorized construction will be removed by the respondent – Corporation today.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the captioned writ petition filed by the present appellants – original petitioners. The captioned writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“(A) Be pleased to admit and allow the petition.

(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting-aside the notice dated 02.01.2025 at (Annexure-A).

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the notice dated 02.01.2025;

3. Thus, the petitioners are seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 02.01.2025 issued by the respondent – Corporation, whereby the process of widening- up the road is undertaken in view of the Town Planning Scheme and they are directed to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of three days.

4. The learned Single Judge gave two opportunities to the appellants – original petitioners to produce the demarcation of the land in view of the Town Planning Scheme however, they failed to do so and ultimately, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S.Shah with learned advocate Mr. Karan U.Vyas appearing for the appellants – original petitioners has submitted that the respondent – Corporation has acted in violation of the provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short “the T.P. Act”) read with Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (for short “the T.P. Rules”). He has referred to the provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the T.P. Act and has submitted that before such action is taken, the respondent – Corporation is required to examine their grievance and objection to the removal of construction since it is beyond the permissible demarcation of the Town Planning Scheme. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai And Company vs. State of Gujarat, 1985 (2) S.C.C. 732.

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shah, while referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, has submitted that in case of summary eviction also, the respondent – Corporation is required to give notice and hearing to them and only after considering their objections, the said construction, which is subject of matter of the notice, is required to be removed.

7. It is also submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shah that all of a sudden, after a period of 25 years, the respondent–Corporation has taken the step of removing the construction in view of widening of 12 mtrs. Town Planning Road and before undertaking such exercise of removing the construction, the respondent – Corporation is required to give hearing. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the notice are required to be quashed and set aside.

8. Vehemently opposing the present appeal, learned advocate Mr.G.H.Virk appearing for the respondent– Corporation has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost, as the appellants – original petitioners have mislead the learned Single Judge as well as this Court. He has referred to the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge and also the judgment dated 13.09.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.2462 of 2005, wherein the very society of the present appellants- original petitioners had assailed the final Town Planning Scheme.

9. Learned advocate Mr.Virk has submitted that by placing reliance on the said judgment, a contention was raised in