SATYADEV PARASNATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions are filed by the respective Petitioners for the prayer inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2012 passed by Respondent No.3 Corporation at Annexure-N and also quash and set aside the notification issued by Respondent No.1 State dated 2.7.2012 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. It is further prayed with regard to the interim relief for implementing the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.62 (Dindoli-Bhestan-Bhedwad) in respect of Plot of the Petitioners of both the petitions, i.e. Block No. 505 situated at village Dindoli, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel Shri S.P.Majmudar for the Petitioners. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar referred to the papers at length and submitted that as stated in detail in the written submissions, his main submissions are that the objections have not been considered as per order passed earlier in Special Civil Application No. 18812 of 2011 referred to in Special Civil Application No. 834 of 2014. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the objections or the representations of the petitioners should have been considered whereas the same have not been considered. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the contentions have been raised that the proposed T.P.Scheme is inconsistent with the development plan. He pointedly referred to the Map at Annexure-C referring to the Block No.505. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the petitioners have no objection with the final development plan where the road is passing through the corner of Block No.505 and they would not have any objection. However, the alignment in the road is changed in the Draft Town Planning Scheme which is causing prejudice to the petitioners. For that purpose, learned Counsel Shri Majmudar referred to the papers including Annexure-I. He submitted that the objections could have been considered with regard to the suggestions for variation. It was submitted that no variation could be made in the final development plan without following the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the Draft T.P. Scheme is not in consonance with the development plan. He submitted that these objections have not been considered. Further, it was submitted that the procedure as required for the purpose of deciding the T.P.Scheme has not been followed. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar emphasized that the act should be done in the manner prescribed in the statute. He submitted that Special Civil Application No. 18812 of 2011 preferred by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 16085 of 2012 was disposed of by the High Court directing the Respondent No.3-Corporation to give the opportunity of hearing as observed in the judgment M/s Babubhai & Co. and ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 1985 2 GLR 883. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar has also referred to the provisions of T.P. Scheme read with Rule 17, 18 and 26 of the Town Planning Rules. He submitted that there is a open adjoining land and therefore it could have been considered. However, in order to favour few people, the alignment is changed. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar also referred to the provisions of Sections 40, 47 and 19 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act. He emphasized Section 40 read with Rule 17 and submitted that the individual notices as contemplated in this Rule are not served to the petitioners. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the Rule provide for the public notice as well as notice to each individual owner of the land and this point raised in the objection has not been considered.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri S.P.Majmudar submitted that though alternate accommodation by way of flat is provided, it is not suitable and acceptable to the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are required to pay additional amount also and therefore it cannot be said to be justified. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar submitted that the impugned order has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners as it is silent though the High Court in the order in Special Civil Application No. 18812 of 2011 dated 5.9.2012 has specifically directed to decide the objection. Learned Counsel Shri Majmudar further submitted that the T.P. Scheme is bad per se as it is without considering the development plan and therefore it is in violation of Section 40 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act as there is no consultation with the Chief Town Planning Officer.