(1.) Heard Mr.R.R.Marshal, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Arpit A. Kapadia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Venugopal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 4, Mr.Dhaval G. Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that action of the respondents to deduct approximately 37 % of land from the total area of land bearing Survey No.135, Block No.129, which is allotted Original Plot No.120, admeasuring 12205 Sq.Mtrs., whereby in lieu of the same, the petitioners have been allotted Final Plot No.120, admeasuring 14336 sq.mtrs., in Town Planning Scheme No.61 (Parvat-Godadara), Surat city and has further prayed to declare such scheme as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners have further prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to remove the proposed allocation/reservation in the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of water distribution center and to grant development permission for the whole area of the plot belonging to the petitioners.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the statement that when intention to prepare the scheme was declared by SUDA, deduction in other plots which are in the same town planning scheme area and which are in the vicinity of the petitioners' plotm is only between 5 to 13 %, whereas in case of the petitioners only, deduction is to the tune of 37 %. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the similar chart, where the area in question was within the area of Surat Municipal Corporation, wherein in other plots also, deduction from 0 to 13 % is provided. It was further pointed out that while the petitioners applied for permission to develop the land in question, the same was declined by SUDA. It is specifically contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of 13 applications, only the application of the petitioners was declined and in rest of the applications, permissions were granted for larger area than proposed final plot. It was further pointed out that ultimately, by development permission dated 14.07.2011, the petitioners have been granted permission only for Final Plot No.120 as allotted in the draft Town Planning Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioners predominantly contended that deduction is unreal and the petitioners have been meted out with different treatment, and there is inequality between deduction in the same town planning scheme area and only the petitioners' rights have been denied to develop the land as a whole, whereas other persons have been given benefit of less deduction.