ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside communication dated 30.03.2016 and for further direction that the respondent-Corporation may make necessary inquiry of the land in question where the petitioner is carrying on his business. Alternatively, direction is sought to consider objections of the petitioner and pass a detailed order by assigning reasons.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having his place of business on city survey No.3640, ward No.12, where, from the newspapers as well as from the officers of the respondent-Corporation felt threatened that the shops of the petitioners would be demolished.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that communication dated 30.03.2016 does not assign any reason why written representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2016 came to be rejected. It is submitted that the impugned communication cannot be said to be an order as contemplated under Section 260 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and as the said communication is not in accordance with the provisions and as there is absence of any hearing, principle of natural justice is not followed and hence, is required to be set aside.

3.1 Alternatively, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made application to the Town Planning Officer, Municipal Commissioner and Urban Development Authority, which is at Annexure-C, to consider the case of the petitioner and if the construction is found unauthorized then such construction may be regularized, while the petitioner is ready and willing to pay any impact fee that may be applicable in accordance with law.

4. Learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation opposed grant of petition submitting that the petitioner has located his shop which is on the land of the Corporation. Not only that but it is also on the road of the Town Planning scheme and therefore, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered even for the purpose of regularization of construction as the petitioner is now an encroacher.

4.1 It is submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, directions were given to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and accordingly, opportunity was given. However, for the reasons stated in the communication regarding the applicant being encroacher, case was not considered.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the petitioner claims to be a tenant of one Hasmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Prajapati. However, on record, there is nothing indicating with regard to such relation with said Hasmukhbhai Prajapati. The documents which are produced on record, which consist of electricity bills and record of city survey record, indicate that survey No.3640, admeasuring 312.60 in ward No.12 is running in the name of the Nagarpalika, Rajkot. Same is the case in the documents placed at page Nos.42 and 43, which show a ‘sanad’ issued in the name of one Mohan Parshottam, which pertains to allotment. Beyond this, there are no other documents which would substantiate claim of the petitioner to have any connection with the land in question or that the petitioner is having any lawful title in the land in question. The photographs produced along with the application also do not indicate any legal right of the petitioner or location of such shops.

6. The Court has taken into consideration order dated 08.01.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.21203 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, wherein the Court has taken into consideration the fact about statutory notice under Section 260 with regard to land in question being issued in the name of an individual whose name was reflected in the record of city survey and therefore, apparently, process as contemplated under Section 260 appears to have been carried out and the same is reflected in para-3 of order dated 08.01.2016 in the case of the very petitioner. W