HITESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI GOTI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the resolution passed by the Standing Committee dtd. 22/1/2021 and consequent thereto Notice dtd. 15/7/2021 issued under Sec. 213 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No.1051/2/B of Village Variyav, Taluka, Adjan Dist.Surat. In the year 2004, Surat Municipal Corporation had declared its intention to frame the Town Planning Scheme No.37(Variyav) and notification of intention was published on 10/2/2004 and thereafter Corporation has prepared the Draft Scheme. The State Government sanctioned Draft Town Planning Scheme and appointed Town Planning Officer on 9/10/2006. In the revised Development Plan 90 Mtrs. road was proposed passing through the original Survey No.1051/2/B in the Town Planning Scheme, therefore, Town Planning Officer revised the 60 Mts. road to 90 Mts. road in the final Town Planning Scheme. Thus, the Survey No.1051/2/B/p demarcated as O.P.No.26 admeasuring 8175 sq. Mts came to be reconstituted as Final Plot No.33 admeasuring 5340 sq.Mts. On 26/9/2012, the State Government sanctioned preliminary scheme and thereafter Final Town Planning Scheme came to be sanctioned on 29/7/2017. In the meantime, the proposals of the Scheme are also implemented by the Corporation and the Petitioners have also surrendered the land earmarked by the Corporation and possession of final plot No.33 admeasuring 5340 Sq.Mts. came to be retained by the present petitioners. On 6/2/2020, the petitioner made an application before the the Corporation for development of land and getting plot validation certificate. At that point of time, the Officer of respondent No.2 informed orally the petitioners that there is further reduction in the plot measurement. However, no written document was provided to the petitioner. On 12/2/2020, a public notice came to be published, wherein it is stated that the Corporation is proposed to prescribe a road line. On 20/2/2020, in furtherance to the notice dtd. 12/2/2020, the petitioners have filed their objection. Recently, the Corporation has visited the site of the petitioners and called upon to surrender further land. However, no notice has been issued to the present petitioners. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Viral Salot, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Dhaval Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP for the respondent - State.