KANCHANBEN CHANDULAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction declaring that the respondents have no competent jurisdiction, authority or power to allot privately owned properties to any private party.

(2.) IT is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was the owner of the land bearing City Survey No.3447/8 situated at Ward No.2 of Bhuj, which she has purchased from one J.K. Construction Company by registered sale -deed. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that after the devastating earthquake and after the TP Scheme was implemented, some portion of the land has been allotted to the respondent No.7. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have no authority to allot the land owned by the petitioner (private party) to any other private party.

(3.) AN affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondents inclusive of respondent No.7. It is the contention on behalf of the TP Authority and the State Government that the TP Scheme No.4 has been sanctioned and there is a Final Scheme under the TP Act and now it has become part of the Act. It is also further submitted that at the time of Preliminary TP Scheme as well as Draft TP Scheme, the objections were invited, however, at no point of time, the petitioner has submitted her objection and has allowed the TP Authority to proceed further with the scheme and now when the scheme has been sanctioned and as there is a TP Scheme, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same as once it has become part of the Act. It is also further submitted on merits that under the provisions of the TP Act, certain lands are required to be deducted by way of compulsory deduction for the purpose of implementation of the TP Scheme such as, reconstitution of the plots and the land required for some other public purpose. It is further submitted that the land bearing City Survey No. 3447/8 of Bhuj was denoted as OP No.1881 admeasuring 300.89 sq mts and in lieu of the said OP, reconstituted Final Plot No.1196 admeasuring 210.541 sq mts is allotted in joint ownership inclusive of the petitioner i.e. Kanchanben. It is submitted that the land forming part of OP No. 1881 other than the Final Plot No. 1196 has been given on reconstitution of the plots in favour of the respondent No.7 which is now forming part of Final Plot No. 1195. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent No.7 that the respondent No.7 was the owner of the land bearing City Survey No. 1759 admeasuring 480.82 sq mts and on implementation of the TP Scheme No.4, the respondent No.7 has been allotted land admeasuring 336.90 sq mts being Final Plot No.1195 and now the Final Plot No.1195 is also forming part of portion of land land which was occupied by the petitioner. It is submitted that on reconstitution of the plots and on allotment of Final Plot No. 1195, the land which was required to be taken over from the respondent No.7 has been taken over and even the respondent No.7 has been handed over the Final Plot No. 1195 which is inclusive of some of the land forming part of Survey No. 3447/8 i.e. OP No.1881. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the contention on behalf of the petitioner that under the TP Act, the State Government have no jurisdiction and/or authority to allot land owned by the private party to the another private party has no substance at all. It is submitted that under the TP Act for the purpose of implementation of the TP Scheme and while reconstituting the plots, the land owned by the private party can be alloted to other private party and even the land from the other party can also be handed over to some other party for the purpose of implementation of the TP Scheme and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present special civil application.