RANJANBEN HIMATLAL JOSHI Vs. COLLECTOR RAJKOT DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that on 28th March, 1978, the petitioners, under a registered sale deed, purchased the land of Plot No. 33 admeasuring 678 sq. mtrs. of Survey No. 90 of Raiya Village. On 4th April, 1978, Mutation Entry No. 3230 was made in the record of rights. It is to be seen that after the petitioners purchased the land, a town planning scheme was brought into action, the scheme was finalised and thereafter, the State Government, vide its order dated 4th April, 1989, finalised Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and sanctioned the same. The petitioners' original Plot No. 33 was consolidated with the other land and ultimately, the petitioners were allotted by the competent Town Planning Officer Final Plot No. 178 admeasuring 755 sq. mtrs. The petitioners were asked to deposit the premium-cum-price for the additional land; the petitioners, accordingly, deposited a sum of Rs. 4,428/- for the additional area allotted to them. It is to be noticed that on the area of 16. 22 sq. mtrs. of the said Final Plot No. 178, there existed some encroachment. On 26th October, 1994, the Rajkot Urban Development Authority (?ruda? for short) granted development permission to the petitioners, sanctioned the plans and as alleged by the petitioners, promised them to remove the said encroachment. It is also to be noted that on 24th October, 1994, Mutation Entry No. 6928 was made in the name of the petitioners in relation to the land of Final Plot No. 178.

(2.) ON 21st February, 1995, the said Entry No. 6928 was certified by the Mamlatdar after due verification. On 14th March, 1995, the petitioners made an application to RUDA for removal of the encroachment. However, before any action could be taken by RUDA, the respondent No. 1, that is, the Collector, District: Rajkot, issued a notice to the petitioners on 17th May, 1995 to show cause as to why Entry No. 6928 be not taken up in revision and be cancelled. The petitioners appeared before the Collector and submitted their reply, but, disagreeing with the submissions made by the petitioners, vide order dated 21st September, 1995, the Collector cancelled Mutation Entry No. 6928 and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar on the ground of the alleged irregularities committed by the Town Planning Officer while framing and sanctioning Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The petitioners challenged the said order before the State Government, but, unfortunately, the said revision was dismissed on 19th July, 1999. Therefore, the petitioners, allottees of Final Plot No. 178, are before this Court.

(3.) SHRI Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that after finalising of the scheme, the Town Planning Officer was entitled to allot any land from the planned area and the area could be less than the original area, equal to the original area or could even be more than the area, which was earlier held by the petitioners. His submission is that after the Town Planning scheme is sanctioned, the lands belonging to certain people go into development and some lands are joined with the lands of others. In a case where somebody receives lesser area, he would be entitled to compensation, but, the person, who receives additional area, would be obliged to pay the premium-cum-price to the Town Planning Officer so that the said money is paid to the persons, who received the less area or for the purpose of development. His submission is that Entry No. 6928 could not be set aside by the Collector unless the Scheme was wholly set aside and the Town Planning Officer was asked to frame the scheme afresh.