JAI HIND PUBLICATIONS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition preferred under the provisions of Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unoccupants) Act, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :

(2.) FACTS of the petitioner s case are such that the petitioner started a daily newspaper in the name of Jai Hind . On 27.2.1992, the Collector, respondent No.2 herein granted land being Survey No.34, Final Plot No.72 admeasuring 3030 Sq. Mtr. of village Thaltej to the petitioner in a total sum of Rs.6,8,1750/- by imposing certain conditions and one of the conditions was that the petitioner should commence construction work within six months and same to be completed within two years. The said period for completion of work was extended from time to time till 12.11.2001. The AUDA granted development permission for setting up a press on the said land. On 28.10.2002, the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice by stating that the construction work was carried out only upto plinth level and thereby resulting in breach of condition Nos.4,5 and 7 of the order dated 27.2.1992. The petitioner replied in detail the show cause on 24.12.2002 by stating that the original plans were sanctioned by AUDA only in March, 1996 and the revised plans were approved in December, 1997 and the construction of basement was completed, the bore-well was dug and permission for release of electric power was issued by the AEC. It is also stated in the reply that due to the earthquake the work for the 10 storied building was delayed and till date, the petitioner had spent approximately Rs.41 Lac towards construction of the building and therefore, the petitioner requested for extension of further two years for completion of the project. The respondent without considering the reply, illegally and arbitrarily passed order on 16.1.2003 directing resumption of the said premises and area.

(3.) LEARNED senior advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that the land was allotted to the petitioner on the certain terms and conditions and present petitioner has tried to comply with the said terms and conditions with a view to finish the construction work. The petitioner requested for extension of time, from time to time and the Authority granted extension upto 2003. He also submitted that it is the say of the Authority that said disputed land is not acquired, which was recovered under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code. He also submitted and even from the documents produced on record, the Authority has never mentioned that the land which acquired under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, but just to protect the skin of the Authority, the Authority has explained that the land is recovered under the provisions of Revenue Code. He also submitted that the stand taken by the Authority can be said to be an after thought. The petitioner invested round about Rs.42 Lacs at that time. Learned senior advocate read over the reasons and submitted that the respondent cannot say that on humanity ground, the time was granted.