LAWS(GJH)-2017-1-114

CHARIMAN/PRESIDENT PARSHOTTAM RATILAL PARMAR Vs. COLLECTOR

Decided On January 16, 2017
CHARIMAN/PRESIDENT PARSHOTTAM RATILAL PARMAR Appellant
V/S
Collector And 2 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioner Society through its Chairman/President seeking prayers as contained in Paragraph VII. The learned Advocate Mr.R.K. Shah for the petitioner does not press for the prayer contained in Clause-B of Paragraph VII. It appears that earlier the petition was filed as PIL, however, the Division Bench vide the order dated 20.12.2004 treated the petition as general petition and directed to be posted before the Single Bench. Accordingly, the petition was listed before this Court for hearing.

(2.) The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the legality of the impugned order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.1 Collector (Annexure-B) allotting the plot in question admeasuring about 88 sq. mtrs., situated in between the Survey Nos.89 and 90 to the respondent No.3.

(3.) As per the case of the petitioner Society, there were 22 members belonging to the Scheduled Caste and they had put up construction on the land bearing Survey No.90 admeasuring about 6070 sq. mtrs. Earlier the petitioner had filed the writ petition being SCA No.15481 of 2004 seeking necessary directions against the respondent authorities with regard to the allotment of plot in question, to the petitioner for the purpose of constructing Dr. Ambedkar Hall, apprehending that the said plot would be allotted to the respondent No.3. However, the said petition was disposed of by this Court as the petitioner had failed to produce necessary communication / decision allotting the said plot to the respondent No.3. The Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision, if any, taken for allotment of the said plot (Annexure-A). Subsequently, the petitioner having received the copy of the order dated 5.11.2004 passed by the Collector, Anand allotting the plot in question to the respondent No.3, the said order has been challenged in the present petition.