RAM SHIKSHA SADAN TRUST Vs. PARAS EDUCATION TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Civil Application -Review Application is preferred by the applicants -original respondent nos. 4 to 6 of main writ petition viz. Spl.C.A. No.4723/2002 (hereinafter referred to as Spl.CA) moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act. In this application, the applicants have prayed that the order passed by this Court on 3.2.2003 while disposing of the above-said Spl.C.A., be reviewed and thereby recall the same and treat the Spl.CA as dismissed. It is simultaneously prayed that if this application viz. review application is found barred by period of limitation, then the delay, if any, be condoned. Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 are original petitioner and opponent nos. 3 to 7 are original respondent nos.1 to 3, 7 & 8 of the main Spl.CA.

(2.) It would be appropriate to have a look at the facts leading to the present Review Application. The original petitioners -opponent nos. 1 & 2 herein had challenged the decision of Surat Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as SUDA) allotting a piece of land to applicant no.1 Ram Siksha Sadan Trust , Surat from TP Scheme No.1 (Vesu) of Final Plot No.185 admeasuring about 5694 sq.mts. Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. S.H.Sanjanwala had taken this Court through number of legal as well as factual grounds mentioned in the memo of Spl.CA and had submitted that petitioner Paras Education Trust has fundamental - statutory right to get the allotment of the very piece of land for being used for educational purpose which would be in consonance with the reservation made in the TP Scheme and, therefore, it is the right of petitioner Paras Education Trust to have their application considered by respondent nos.1 & 2 namely SUDA and its Chairman. Respondent no.2 in the Spl.CA was the Chairman of SUDA and opponent no.4 herein. Application of petitioner Paras Education Trust was pending before SUDA. However, the order allotting the land directly to Ram Siksha Sadan Trust passed is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and malafide and, therefore, the allotment of land requires to be quashed. For the sake of convenience and to appreciate the say of the present applicants, I would like to quote relevant pars of Spl.CA being paras-4(E), 4(F), 4(G) and 4(GG) as under:-

(3.) During the course of oral submissions of ld. Sr.Counsel Mr. Sanjnawala, a pointed query was raised by the Court to ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. M.D.Pandya appearing for original respondent no.1 SUDA in light of the facts stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1 SUDA wherein it has been stated that as per Sec.67 of the Town Planning & Urban Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the TP Act), all the lands required by the appropriate authority vest absolutely in appropriate authority i.e. SUDA only on the day on which preliminary scheme comes into force and in this case, preliminary scheme has not come into force and, therefore, land under reservation has not been vested in appropriate authority and can not be disposed of at this stage. This affidavit dated 10.12.2002 came to be filed in the main Spl.CA in the month of January-2003. It is true that ground 4(GG) came to be added in the main Spl.CA vide draft amendment dated 27.1.2003, but the fact remains that on the date of the order sought to be reviewed by the applicants, the stand of SUDA was consistent with the stand taken in the reply affidavit and, therefore, ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Pandya had categorically submitted that respondent no.1 SUDA has not allotted the land in question to anybody and he had also taken this Court through relevant part of affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government wherein responsible officer of the State Government has stated on oath that TP Scheme No.1 (Vesu) has not been finalised and yet land in question has not been vested in respondent no.1 SUDA and so there is no question of allotting the land referred to by the original petitioner Paras Education Trust in the petition to respondent no.4 trust. It was fairly submitted that because of some act on the part of respondent no.4 RAM SIKSHA SADAN TRUST, the petitioners have rushed to the Court. It was further contended before the Court that "there is no formal resolution passed by SUDA allotting the land in question to anybody".