RUSTOM JEHANGIR CAMA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the action of the respondents in demolishing the boundary wall situated on the western side of the final plot Nos. 125 and 126 adjoining the Sabarmati River Front, and further prayed to direct the respondents to reconstruct the said boundary wall at their costs.

(2.) The Court, while issuing the notice to the respondents, vide the order dated 19.12.2014, had granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(D), whereby the respondents were restrained from carrying any further demolition of the premises of the petitioners situated in the final plot Nos. 125 and 126, and from dispossessing the petitioners' portion of the land adjoining to the river front by attempting to put concrete on lawn belonging to the petitioners during the pendency of the petition. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Corporation by filing the affidavit-in-reply, to which the petitioners have filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder and also further affidavits.

(3.) As per the case of the petitioners, the international class 4th Star Hotel "Cama" as well as the residential house of the petitioner No.1 are situated in the land bearing final plot Nos. 125 and 126 of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (D.K. Section) in the Khanpur area of Ahmedabad city. According to the petitioners, initially the lands in question were agricultural lands which were purchased by the forefathers of the petitioner No. 1 in the year 1949. Thereafter, the town planning scheme having come into force in the year 1950s, the area of the plots belonging to the petitioners was modified, and once again the plot boundaries of the petitioners were unilaterally modified when the said scheme was approved in 1956. According to the petitioners, in the year 2002-03, the Sabarmati River Front Development Project was envisaged in respect of the development of the river front. The father of the petitioner No.1 therefore had addressed various letters to the Chairman of Sabarmati River Front Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the SRFDCL'), seeking information in respect of the said project to ensure that the said project may not be in any way detrimental to the property of the petitioners, however, the father of the petitioner No. 1 was assured that their property would not be affected. Thereafter, the respondents had started alleging that the petitioners had made encroachments upon the land belonging to river front. According to the petitioners, the entire river front project was constructed without any proper planning, transparency and precision. A footpath on the land adjoining to the premises of the petitioners was also envisaged. The resultant effect was that the road falling on the southern side of the final plot Nos. 126, which was once the land of the petitioners, and was carved out of the petitioners' land, was sought to be further broadened, and for which the petitioners were being threatened that the construction on the southern side of the plot on which the plant and machinery and other construction were existing would be demolished. It is further the case of the petitioners that thereafter the officers of the respondents acting in prejudicial and mala fide manner, were attempting to destroy the boundary walls on the western side of the petitioners residential as well as the business establishment, by laying down concrete on the lawn and by removing trees and plantation on the final plot Nos. 125 and 126, and hence the petition was filed.