IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6896 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

=============================================

	1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?		NO
	3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
	4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

=============================================

GADHIYA BHAGWANBHAI NATHABHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT =============================================

Appearance:

MR DILIP L KANOJIYA(3691) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 13/04/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. In response to notice dated 08-04-2022, learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela has instruction to appear on behalf of the respondent- Nagarpalika. He is permitted to file his appearance on behalf of the respondent- Nagarpalika.

2. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state and learned Advocate Mr. Haribhai Patel for Mr. Deepak Sanchela waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent- Nagarpalika.

3. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to set aside order dated 15-02-2022 issued by the Chief Officer, Veraval- Patan Joint Nagarpalika. The impugned order is directing the petitioner to remove the construction, which according to the Authority is unauthorized and without permission.

4. The petitioner has raised several contentions in the petition. However, during the course of arguments, learned Advocate has focused on contention that action contemplated under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 requires notice of statutory period of 30 days, which, in the impugned action has not been complied with by the respondent – Authority. He draws attention of this Court to notice dated 10-02-2022, wherein the petitioner was called upon to represent his case with necessary evidences on 14-02-2022 and immediately on the next day, the impugned order came to be passed.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to Section-36 states that when notice dated 10-02-2022 was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to answer such notice even before lapse of statutory period of 30 days and was called to give explanation / written reply on 14-02-2022. It is submitted that on 14-02-2022, as the petitioner was required to collect necessary documents, which dated as back as 1925, the petitioner requested for some time, which was declined and on the very next day, the impugned order is passed.

6. Learned Advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela appearing on behalf of the respondent- Nagarpalika has placed on record communications dated 19-08-2020 and 22-11-2021 addressed to one Nirmalaben Popatbhai Rudhani and others submitting that with regard to the action contemplated under Section-36, notice was issued way back on 19-

08-2020 and therefore, ground of statutory period of 30 days may not be ground for interfering in the action taken by the Nagarpalika.

7. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in occupation of the property in question under the registered sale-deed registered in the year 2018, copy of which is at Annexure-C. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent- Authority was well aware of the ownership of the property and hence, it was the petitioner who was required to be issued with the notice and not predecessor in title.

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the notice under Section-36 was issued on 10-02-2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document