KEYUR D GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to annex Annexure-H1 to the petition is granted. Leave to amend the prayer-clause at Paragraph 25-B and Paragraph-2 of the petition is granted. The amendment may be carried out forthwith.

(2.) This petition, has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: "

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners are the co-owners of land bearing Survey Nos.738/2 and 738/3 of Village: Makarba, District: Ahmedabad ("the subject land" for short). In or about the year 2006, the petitioners were informed about the framing of a Draft Town Planning Scheme which included the subject land and after considering the objections raised by the petitioners, they were called upon to pay betterment charges on the assurance that they would be allotted a Final Plot, as per their Original Plot. The petitioner No.1 made the payment of Rs.33,96,842/- and the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 made payment of Rs.33,85,445/-. Thereafter, the petitioners received the information that on 09.04.2008, respondent No.2 - The Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) made a Declaration of its intention to make a Scheme under Section 41 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("the Act" for short), which was published in the local newspaper "Prabhat" on 27.04.2008. According to the petitioners, the said newspaper does not have wide circulation and there was no adequate publication of the said Declaration, as contemplated under the Act and Rule 16 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 ("the Rules" for short). Respondent No.2 appears to have called a meeting of the owners, whose lands were proposed to be included in the Town Planning Scheme under Rule 17 of the Rules, vide Notice published on 17.02.2009 in the local daily newspaper "Divya Bhaskar" regarding holding of the said meeting on 21.02.2009. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the said Public Notice and nor were they served with any individual notice regarding the holding of such a meeting, as required under the Act and the Rules and, therefore, they were precluded from making any suggestion or raising objections to the proposals contemplated under the Draft Scheme. Respondent No.2 thereafter framed the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.204 (Makarba - Sarkhej - Okaf - Ambli - Vejalpur), which was published in the Official Gazette on 04.04.2009 and in the local newspaper "Gujarat Samachar", on 10.04.2009. According to the petitioners, such notice was not published on or around the land of the petitioners and the said Scheme has also not been made and published within the time stipulated for the purpose under Section 42 of the Act, being a period of nine months from the date of declaration of intention with the maximum three months' extension. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the said Scheme, there was no proposal to lay down a road through the land of the petitioners but the petitioners were called upon to pay betterment charges, which have been paid. The petitioners submitted their objections to the levy of such charges vide letter dated 07.05.2009. According to the petitioners, as there was no proposal for laying of road under the Scheme in respect of the subject land, the petitioners applied for Development Permission for constructing residential bungalows on the basis that the Final Plot would be as per the Original Plot. However, on 25.08.2009, the petitioner No.2 received a letter from respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioners to submit revised Development Plans in accordance with the said Scheme which, according to respondent No.2, had been submitted to the State Government for sanction on 02.07.2009. The petitioners made inquiries regarding the said Scheme and learnt that the said Scheme, as published, had been substantially modified by respondent No.2 by laying down a network of roads in and around the subject land, including a road through the subject land itself on the south-eastern side, thereby substantially reducing the subject land and altering the boundary in a manner that the existing structure and trees have to be removed. It is the specific case of the petitioners that such a modification is not of the nature contemplated under Section 47 of the Act and tantamounts to framing of new Scheme. Moreover, the petitioners were not put to notice to this modification and were not given any opportunity of submitting their objections thereto. The petitioners sought to make a representation against the modified Scheme before respondent No.2 but were informed that the said Scheme has already been submitted to respondent No.1 (State of Gujarat). The petitioners then filed a detailed representation to both respondents Nos.1 and 2 pointing out the aforementioned facts but till date, no decision has been communicated to them regarding the said representation. Apprehending that there is a likelihood of an irreversible situation being created which would render the petitioners remedyless, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition.