GANPATLAL S BHAKHARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appear to be that certain employees of the Municipality, who were not having proper accommodation had applied to the Municipality for allotment of the land. The Municipality passed Resolution No.158 dated 24.7.1989 for allotment of the land in Town Planning Scheme No.1 to the belong to one class employees at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. mtrs. The another resolution was also passed vide No.159 for allotment of the land to the employees belong to other community at the same rate. The third Resolution was passed by the Municipality for allotment of the land vide No.181 to the employees belonging to one another community. It appears that thereafter, the resolution was also passed by the Municipality for modification of the T.P. Scheme and accordingly, the proposal was forwarded to the State Government for grant of sanction and publication of the same in the Notification. Such resolution was passed vide No.181 dated September 20, 1989 and in the said resolution, the proposed allotment to its employees as per the above referred resolutions was to be given effect by suggesting the modification of the T.P. Schemes No.1 and 2. It appears that thereafter, the proposal was also forwarded by the Municipality to the State Government. In the meantime, the District Collector in exercise of the power under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), had taken up the matter and found that the resolutions have been passed by the Municipality without obtaining prior permission of the competent Authority and other reasons were also mentioned to the effect that the land was demanded for various other purposes by the other Institutions. Ultimately, the District Collector directed the Municipality to get the sanction of the competent Authority and to do the needful. Not only that, but in the other proceedings, vide No.33/89 under Section 258 of the Act, the District Collector set aside the resolution passed by the Municipality for allotment of the land to its employees. The matter was carried in revision before the State Government under Section 264 of the Act by the petitioner and other employees and the State Government also found that as the prior permission was not obtained of the competent authority, the said revision was dismissed and the order of the Collector was confirmed. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition.

(2.) Heard Mr.Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Karanjit Vadodariya with Mr.Sanjay Amin, learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality, Mr.Parikh, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned Counsel for respondents No.4,5,7 and 8.

(3.) It appears from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Municipality that the aforesaid proposal of the Municipality for modification of the Draft Scheme was considered by the State Government and vide Notification dated 4.9.2006, the State Government has rejected the said proposal of the Municipality for modification of the Draft Scheme, a copy of which is produced with the affidavit-in-reply.