BHARATBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.A.D.Oza, learned GP, waives service of notice of rule for respondents No.1 and 3 and Mr.Nagarkar waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of all the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the custodian of one Amol Sitadel Coop. Housing Society, which is also known as "Pallavi Apartments". It is the case of the petitioner that in the "Pallavi Apartments", in all there are three towers; one high-rise tower of 9 storey, second high-rise tower of 7 storey, and the third low-rise of 4 storey. On account of the earth-quake on 26-1-2001, large number of buildings in the State, including in Ahmedabad had collapsed and were also damaged. The State Government passed the resolution of giving reliefs on 23-2-2001 to the buildings situated in the State and those buildings are divided into three categories namely; G2, G3 and G4. There is no dispute on the point that the buildings in which the inspection was carried out by the Expert Committee, which are the subject mater of this petition, are falling under G3 category. The inspection report dated 9-3-2001 is produced on record of G3 category and the damage assessed is 40% to 50%. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of this certificate issued by the corporation on the basis of the expert opinion, the unit which is comprising of three separate towers in the society of the petitioner, was treated as one and damage assessed on the basis of the certificate of 40% to 50% for one tower only at the rate of Rs.1,72,000/=. The petitioner is also paid the said amount. It is the case of the petitioner that in all, on account of the fact that there are three separate towers, the petitioner had to spend huge amount of Rs.16,00,000/= for the repaire of the said buildings. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner would also be entitled to the relief at the rate of 40% to 50% in respect of left out one high rise tower and one low rise tower, because the relief paid is only for one high rise tower, treating the unit of the petitioner as one.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the State Government is that the Expert Body has issued certificate on the basis of which the compensation is paid. The reliance is also placed by Mr.Oza as well as by Mr.Nagarkar upon the approved plan of the Corporation and they have raised contentions that since there was only one approved plan of the constructed buildings, the petitioner society is treated as one unit and accordingly compensation has been paid. It has also been submited on behalf of the State Government by Mr.Oza that as per the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, in respect of any non-payment of compensation of relief or otherwise regarding the earth quake effected persons, the proper remedy would be to approach before the concerned learned District Judge/Chairman of Lokpal and Mr.Oza has fairly submitted that if it is ultimately ordered by the learned District Judge, the government will disburse the payment on the receipt of the report or the order or the order.