RAMANBHAI RAISINGHBHAI GOHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of the present petition has sought compliance of the notice dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure A) issued by the Anand -Vallabh Vidhyanagar-Karamsad Urban Development Authority (AVKUDA) under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Town Planning Act').

(2.) At the outset, it may be stated that the entire petition is filed under absolute misconception of law inasmuch as though the Notice- (Annexure-A) has been issued under the Town Planning Act, learned Advocate Mr. Das appearing for the petitioners has quoted all the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the memo of the petition. Apart from the fact that there are no factual details contained in the petition, Mr. Das was completely ignorant about the facts of the case as well as the law applicable to the case when he was arguing the petition. When the Court asked Mr. Das as to whether he has ever gone through the provisions of the Town Planning Act, he replied that he was not required to. Mr. Das even did not know as to under which provision of law the notice was given. He kept on making absolutely irrelevant submissions and reading the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 quoted in the memo of the petition. The Court therefore asked Mr. Das to confine his arguments to the facts and the law applicable, however he would not listen to the same. The Court therefore after hearing him for sometime had to restrain him from wasting the Court's time.

(3.) It is also pertinent to note that Mr. Das has not joined even the AVKUDA as the party respondent, which had issued the Notice (Annexure A). It is needless to say that normally the concerned Advocate would draft the petition and then the same would be affirmed by the petitioners believing that the same must have been prepared by the Advocate after applying his legal acumen to the facts of the case. However, in the instant case Mr. Das has not only not incorporated any factual details in the memo of the petition, he has reproduced only the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which are not at all applicable to the notice issued under the Town Planning Act. Mr. Das neither knew the facts nor the law and was acting completely detrimental to the interest of his clients i.e. the petitioners during the course of hearing. When the Court expressed orally that it was not inclined to entertain the petition and would dismiss with cost to be paid by him and not by the petitioners, he had an audacity to say that this was not the final Court and that he would approach the Supreme Court.