JETHABHAI MEPABHAI MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Anjar and has been aggrieved by Town Planning Scheme No. 3 made by respondent No. 2. His residential house, which is on Survey No. 1237 original plot No. 82, would be adversely affected because the construction put up by him on approximately 20 sq. meters of the said land will have to be demolished as a result of the scheme.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under : 2.1 Because of the earthquake, which had affected Gujarat, and more, particularly, Anjar, Bhuj, Rapar and other places in the western part of Gujarat on 26th January, 2001, respondent No. 2 had declared its intention to make a town planning scheme in respect of Anjar. The said declaration was made under the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 4th May, 2002. In the instant case, the petitioner is concerned with Anjar Town Planning Scheme No. 3. The petitioner is having his residential house on original plot No. 82, and he has been allotted Final Plot No. 82 in lieu of the said plot. As per the draft scheme, boundaries of the petitioner's original plot were quite different and as a result thereof, a substantial portion of the petitioner's building was to be demolished. The petitioner, therefore, filed his objections, which were duly considered by respondent No. 2, and upon finding substance in the objections of the petitioner, the plot was reconstituted by respondent No. 2. Ultimately, the preliminary scheme, with the reconstituted plot of the petitioner, was sanctioned by the respondent Government on 21st January, 2003 under the provisions of Section 65 of the Act.

(3.) Lerned advocate shri Anjaria appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Final Plot, allotted to the petitioner has not been reconstituted as per, the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. It has been submitted by him that the provisions of Section 45 makes it obligatory on the" part of respondent No. 2 to see that the size and the shape of every reconstituted, plot should be suitable for building purpose, but the shape of the reconstituted plot allotted to the petitioner is quite irregular. Moreover, looking to the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, his building ought not to have been ordered to be demolished by respondent No. 2.