PANCHAL HEMCHANDBHAI CHELARAM Vs. DY SECRETARY (APPEALS),

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following is the main prayer made in Paragraph No.6(A) of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

(2.) It appears that for putting up construction for commercial purpose on land bearing City Survey No.10846, the Town Planning Committee of Palanpur Municipality gave permission to the petitioner under Resolution No.422 dated 04.11.1999. However, since the Mamlatdar found that the petitioner was making construction contrary to rules, he issued an order for stopping the construction and made report to respondent No.2 the Collector. The Collector on further inquiry since found that the permission to put up construction as also the construction being put up by the petitioner was illegal, he issued notice to the petitioner for hearing fixed on 30.05.2000.

(3.) It appear that before the Collector could proceed for hearing, the petitioner approached this Court against the order made by the Mamlatdar by filing Special Civil Application No.5275 of 2000. This Court vide order dated 05.10.2001 disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Collector by representation and directed the Collector to examine the grievance of the petitioner and to decide the matter after considering the relevant records which might be produced by the petitioner. The Court also directed that the construction shall be carried out by the petitioner according to the plan sanctioned by respondent No.3 Municipality. It was, thereafter, the collector passed order dated 28.08.2002 to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner for construction and to remove the construction made by the petitioner pursuant to the permission in exercise of powers under Section 6B of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('the Act'). The Collector has observed in this order that after this Court disposed of the above writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner neither placed any material before him nor made any representation. It is further observed that to give opportunity to the petitioner, one more date of hearing was fixed on 14.08.2002, however no representation was made by the petitioner. The Collector then considered the Site Inspection Report of the maintenance surveyor and the engineer and found that the construction was made by the petitioner without leaving 30% area for parking and also committed other breach of the rules for construction. Such order of the Collector was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before respondent No.1 by preferring Appeal No.7 of 2002. Respondent No.1 concurred with the findings recorded by the Collector and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2003.