BABUBHAI SAMATBHAI DOLAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions are filed with similar facts and for similar reliefs pertaining to particular town planning road of sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No.34 covering village Magob of Surat. The reliefs prayed for are also identical in nature for shifting 24 meters road line to avoid demolition of the residential houses of the petitioners in each of these three petitions. Considering the commonality of subject matter and the requests made on behalf of both the sides, these three petitions are taken up for joint hearing and dismissal. The facts are recorded from the lead matter being Special Civil Application No.8537 of 2019.

(2.) The petitions are filed seeking relief of quashing and setting aside the notice dtd. 28/3/2019 issued by the respondent No.3 being Executive Engineer of Surat Municipal Corporation and seeking further direction to shift 24 meter town planning road so as to avoid demolition of the residential houses of the petitioners. It is also prayed that if the width of the town planning road is reduced to 18 meter then the demolition of the residential houses of the petitioners would be prevented. The petitioners have also made prayer for setting aside the notification dtd. 3/7/2013 by which town planning scheme No.34 was sanctioned. The reliefs prayed qua the block No.106 of village Magob and to reconstitute the final plot covering block No.106.

(3.) Learned Advocate General Shri Kamal Trivedi with learned advocate Mr. Dhawal Nanavati with Mr.vinay Bairaga appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners have not applied for the development permission under Ss. 253 and 254 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 from the authority and also appears from the record that the authority has not considered and deliberated on the application seeking development permission and not approved and not sanctioned any such application under Ss. 29(1)(i), 29(1)(ii), 34, 49(1)(b) of the Act and under Ss. 253 and 254 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 in fact which is on record that the petitioners have never applied for development permission.