SHREE MARUTI DEVELOPERS Vs. VADODARA MAHANAGAR SEVA SADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this matter is listed for orders, by consent of of the learned advocates appearing for the parties it is taken up for final disposal. We have heard the arguments of Shri Bhaskar Tanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Parth H. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

(2.) Petitioner purchased the property bearing no. 118, City Survey Nos. 2848, 2854, 2855, 2856, 2857 and 2858 (Revenue Survey No. 582/2/Part) of Mouje Vadodara Kasba, Vadodara District, admeasuring 2731 sq.mtrs., from its erstwhile owners under the Registered Sale Deed dtd. 13/4/2005. The constructed portion was purchased under the Registered Sale Deed dtd. 28/10/2005 which was measuring 3063.86 sq.mtrs., and thereafter the construction permission was obtained from the respondent authority on 8/4/2009. A portion of the land was sought to be acquired for road widening purposes, accordingly it was acquired under due process of law and an extent of 2419.64 sq.mtrs., possession was taken over for the purpose of road widening for which no compensation was paid. Repeated request by way of representations submitted by the petitioner did not yield any result and petitioner was into shock to receive a communication/notice dtd. 20/6/2017 (Annexure-L) from the respondent stating thereunder, that petitioner has agreed to hand over the land without compensation. In fact, four (4) months prior to the same i.e. during February, 2017, the Corporation took possession of the premises/property by demolishing the compound wall of the petitioner or in other words, the possession of the land and building belonging to the petitioner was taken over.

(3.) Challenging the act of the respondent, petitioner forwarded representations seeking for compensation towards the property acquired. It is also contended in the petition that attempts in the past were made to issue notifications under the provisions of the then Land Acquisition Act , 1894 for acquiring the land for widening of the road, but it was not issued. Subsequently, Notifications under Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is said to have been issued and dropped. Interestingly, none of these notifications are placed on record, except the bald assertion in the petition. In this background of pleadings, the petitioner has prayed for to declare that the petitioner is entitled to fair compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; to direct the respondent authority to restore possession of the wall which they had broken; to pass strictures against the Municipal Commissioner and other officers for acting contrary to law; to apply the provisions of Ss. 77 and 78 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949; to declare Ss. 229 and 231 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 as unconstitutional and ultra vires and same being in breach of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India; to direct the respondent to maintain status-quo ante as prevailing as on 1/2/2017.