MANUBHAI CHANDULAL SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.05.1994 passed by the Special Secretary [Appeals] in Case No. SRD/BKP/MSN/8/94, whereby respondent no. 1 had allowed the application and cancelled the NA permission granted by respondent no. 2.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondents nos. 3 and 4 at the relevant time were the owners of the parcel of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 60/1 paiki, for which respondent no. 2 had granted the NA permission. It is the case of the petitioner that initially Revenue Survey Nos. 60/1, 68/1, 68/2 were consolidated and Revenue Survey No. 60/1 was given and NA permission with respect to the said revenue no. was obtained by respondents nos. 3 & 4 . Thereafter, respondent no. 2 vide order dated 16.02.1991 revised NA permission granted with respect to the said land. The said revised NA permission was granted for commercial purpose. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner purchased 370 sq.mtrs. land for commercial purpose vide registered sale deed dated 25.06.1991. The respondent no. 2 sanctioned the revised lay out play for commercial purpose in Revenue Survey No. 60/1. On the basis of the registered sale deed, as well as NA permission granted by respondent no. 2, the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the village form no. 7 x 12 vide Entry No. 5465. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for construction of the building to the Patan Nagarpalika. The Patan Nagarpalika after verifying the documents, on 21.02.1994 granted permission to the petitioner for construction of the building. Pursuant thereto, respondent no. 5 preferred an application before respondent no. 1 for cancellation of revised NA permission granted by respondent no. 2. However, the petitioner also preferred an application before respondent no. 1 requesting the authority not to decide the application without hearing the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 vide order dated 03.05.1994 allowed the application preferred by respondent no. 5 and cancelled the NA permission granted by respondent no. 2. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record it transpires that respondent no. 2 without ascertaining the zoning regulations has granted revised NA permission to the petitioner. However, the revised NA permission was not in the zone of commercial. Looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that before granting revised NA permission, respondent no. 2 had not taken into consideration the necessary margin required for the construction. In my opinion, respondent no. 1 has not committed any illegality or impropriety while allowing the application filed by the respondent no. 5. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by respondent no. 1 in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same. It is, however, observed that it will be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority to represent his case with a request to consider the same as as per the law prevailing as on today.