LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-109

HARSH REALITY FIRM Vs. ANIL DEVELOPERS

Decided On October 21, 2016
Harsh Reality Firm Appellant
V/S
Anil Developers Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, original respondent no.3 in Special Civil Application No.11317 of 2016, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the learned single Judge.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell are as under; Respondent no.1 herein, original petitioner, is a Partnership Firm carrying on business in the name of "M/s. Anil Developers". The said firm is engaged in the business of acquisition and development of lands. Ukabhai Pujabhai Mali, owner of the land bearing Survey No.142 admeasuring 49,068 sq. metres and situated at Village Savad, entered into a development contract with the original petitionerfirm on 24.10.1988 in respect of the said land. In pursuance of the aforesaid contract, the original petitioner made huge investments for development of the land in question. By order dated 17.03.1999, the District Collector, Vadodara declared the land as Nonagricultural land and N.O.C. under the old tenure land was issued. On 14.12.2000 Somabhai Ukabhai Mali, son of Ukabhai Pujabhai Mali, executed one General Power of Attorney in favour of Dwarkadas, a Partner of the petitionerfirm and another person, named, Rashmikant Jayashankar Bhatt. On 29.12.2000 the respondentVadodara Municipal Corporation ("the VMC" for short) granted development permission of 346 Plots and also issued the 'Rajachitti' in respect of the said plots.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Patel appearing on behalf of appellantoriginal respondent no.3 submitted that the respondentVMC had granted development permission in favour of the appellant after considering the record of the case. It was submitted that development permission granted u/s.29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("the Act" for short) can be cancelled only in the event of circumstances provided u/s.33 of the said Act. However, in the present case, no such circumstances prevailed and therefore, the learned single Judge erred in setting aside the development permission granted by the respondent-VMC.