SHITALBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following relief:-

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are having shops Nos.1 to 6 of their ownership at Madhav Kunj Society, R.S No.67, TP No.25, FP No.39-A at Singanpore, Causeway Road, Surat. Over the said portion of land, petitioners are carrying on their business since very long time and these shops are the only source of livelihood to sustain their families. On 18/2/2013 petitioner Nos.1,2,4 and 5 and on 24/7/2013 petitioner No.3 made applications under Sec. 12 of the GRUDA, 2011 to complainant authority for seeking regularization of construction/ change of use qua their respective shops. The competent authority vide communication dtd. 5/2/2014 intimated that since the petitioners had not produced NOC of society or its members, their applications cannot be considered and as such, upon receipt of said communication, on 6/2/2014, petitioners have submitted reply and also produced NOC dtd. 25/1/2005 duly signed of members of Madhav Kunj society in favour of builder wherein it was stated that they will have no right whatsoever so far as 25% space of COP is concerned and have no objection in case of construction, sale, administration, etc. qua the land in question. The members of the society had also executed said NOC with an understanding that at the time of purchasing the plot in the society, they shall have no right whatsoever in 25% space of COP.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioners that vide communication dtd. 12/2/2014, respondent No.4 had intimated the petitioners that petitioners will have to produce NOC duly signed by the members of Madhav Kunj society within a period of 5 days for the purpose of regularization of construction/ change of use, failing which seals will be applied to all the shops and accordingly, same having not been complied, seals have been applied to two shops out of six shops on 3/3/2014 and other shop owners, four in numbers, were asked to vacate their shops, failing which seals will be applied to their shops also. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the communication dtd. 12/2/2014, petitioners preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of GRUDA on 26/3/2014 and said appeals came to be rejected vide order dtd. 9/6/2015 considering the same as premature.