FARUK ABDUL KADARBHAI MEMON Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is carrying out his business by developing and renovating the building schemes and had purchased constructed building, which was known as 'BATAKA' Building in Raikhad Ward of City of Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1937, pieces of land bearing Survey Nos.2679, 2680, 2681 and 2722/A/3 totaling the area about 113.71 Sq. Mtrs. was purchased by Baghbaan-yar Noor Mohammad by different sale deeds, bearing sale deed Nos.5535 and 5536 of dtd. 14/9/36, whereas sale deed No.275 is of dtd. 4/3/37, and in the year 1937, he constructed a double storied building with basement and named it as 'BATAKA' Building. The petitioner has put forth his case by further asserting that the Municipal Tax bill issued by the respondent No.2 authority reflects the age of the building as 80 years and was also provided with electricity supply by the electricity company. Original owner Yar Mohammad Noor Mohammad died on 8/5/1945 and wife Janbibi also died on 25/12/1973. The heirs sold the premises to one Fatima I. Pipdawala and Ajema Jave Pipdawala by registered sale deed No.3664 on 16/8/17.

(3.) The petitioner purchased the above-said property on as it is basis by registered sale deed No.3001 on 7/11/20 from Pipdawala family and also taken required permission under the provisions of the Disturbed Area Act and the sale deed got registered in favour of the petitioner. Since the building was of old structure, with a view to put up new structure, the petitioner planned out and submitted an intention by filing online form on 5/3/21. Online application ID No.1677809. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any reply from the respondent No.2. He started demolition work with a view to put up new construction, but all of a sudden, after about three months, the petitioner received a communication dtd. 21/5/2021 from the Maintenance Surveyor, Raikhad, Ward No.1, informing the petitioner that his application came to be rejected and the above-said rejection, which was communicated, was limited to one survey number and not to whole parcel of land.