RAMANLAL AMRUTLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The background of facts which has given rise to filing of the petition is that the petitioners are the owners and occupiers of land bearing survey No.1081 situated in the sim of Village Shilaj, Taluka Ghatlodia, District Ahmedabad. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was included in the Draft Town Planning Scheme bearing No. 405/Shilaj/Ambali under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Development Act , 1976. The land bearing survey No. 1081 admeasuring 2125 sq. mtrs. was allotted final plot at some other place having final plot No. 294 admeasuring 1275 sq. mtrs. as 40% of land was deduced in the scheme. Earlier, according to the petitioners, 20 meters was carved out from the land of the petitioners for the purpose of widening of the road, but now, the Corporation is further widening the road from 20 meters to 40 meters, by virtue of which, the entire land appears to have been covered on the issue of widening of the road. According to the petitioners, there are other 43 survey numbers which are also covered for the purpose of widening of the road which is clear from the letter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority dated 8/5/2010, by which, it was informed in general to all 44 owners of the land that their lands are required for the purpose of widening of the road. The State Government, by virtue of notification dtd. 25/10/2017, was pleased to sanction the Draft Town Planning Scheme and pursuant to it, notice has been issued on 18/6/2021 and the State Government has sanctioned the Draft Town Planning Scheme under Sec. 48(2) of the Town Planing Act and as such, notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession within a period of 10 days.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Jitendra Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised two fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that the possession is normally to be simultaneously handed over and as such, so long as final plot which has been allotted to the petitioners is given, there is no right of the respondent authority to take away the possession of the existing land belonging to the petitioners. Secondly, it has been submitted that as many as 44 persons are affected by virtue of such kind of action of the respondent authority. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has further submitted that the respondent authority has picked up the petitioners first in point of time and as such, the discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioners and therefore, the action is not fair on the part of the respondent authority. But, learned advocate Mr. Patel has candidly submitted that the Draft Town Planning Scheme has already been sanctioned by the authority by virtue of Sec. 48(2) of the Act. No further submissions have been made.