Gujarat High Court
Pushpaben Pravinbhai Vaniya vs State Of Gujarat on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1273 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7357 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1273 of 2025
==========================================================
PUSHPABEN PRAVINBHAI VANIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRIYANK V PANDYA(10705) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR(2221) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9
MR GURUSHARANSINGH H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ASSISTED
BY MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP WITH MS HETAL PATEL, ASSIT.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GURUSHARANSINGH H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MR
SIMRANJITSINGH H. VIRK, ADVOCATE WITH MR JAGRAT B. SHAH,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Mr. Gurusharansingh H. Virk, the learned Government Pleader has put in appearance both on behalf of the Corporation as well as State Government.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined and order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ-petition challenging the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the subject premises, situated on original plot nos.181 and 182 of survey nos.156 and 181 (original Revenue Survey Nos.156 and 181) of Village Acher, Taluka Sabarmati, District Ahmedabad.
3. The prayers made in the writ-petition are to quash impugned order dated 21.05.2025 which was passed pursuant to the notice dated 19.04.2025 and further, to set aside the entire exercise of eviction of the petitioners and demolition/ removal of the construction over the land in question. Further prayer made in the writ-petition is to quash and set aside the T.P. Scheme being Final T.P. Scheme No.23 (Sabarmati) being illegal and unconstitutional, as it affects and relates to the properties occupied by the petitioners mentioned in the sketch with the notice dated 19.04.2025.
4. The petitioners before the writ Court were 29 in numbers and the contention therein was that the petitioners are occupants of the land in question having their residences Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined and small space for their earning/livelihood, since many decades. The notice impugned has been issued under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 read with Rule 33 of the Rules, 1979 made thereunder. The eviction of the petitioner is based on the stand of the corporation that the land in question is required for development/ widening of 24 mtrs. T.P. Road.
5. It was the stand of the corporation before the learned Single Judge and also there is no dispute about the fact that the preliminary T.P. Scheme was sanctioned under the Town Planning Act, 1976 as early as on 12.12.198. The final scheme under the Act, 1976 was sanctioned on 22.11.1983 and notification in that regard was published on 09.01.1984. With the notification of the Preliminary T.P. Scheme and the Final Scheme under Section-65 read with Section-67 of the Act, 1976, the land in question vests absolutely in the appropriate authority free from all encumbrances.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
- Corporation before the learned Single Judge was that with the notification dated 09.01.1984, the T.P. Scheme became Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined part of the Act itself and the land in question vests absolutely with the State Government. The occupation of the petitioners over the land in question, therefore, became of an unauthorized occupants. As the T.P. Road under the Town Planning Scheme is to be laid, the eviction notices were issued by the Corporation and the Estate Officer of the Corporation passed order asking the petitioners to vacate the properties in question and to remove their unauthorized occupation. Section-68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 provides that on or after the date on which a preliminary scheme comes into force, any person continuing to occupy any land to which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary scheme, shall be summarily evicted by the appropriate authority, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
7. It is noted by the learned Single Judge and there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners herein had never objected to the identification of the land in question as T.P. Road during the course of preparation of the T.P. Scheme. It is categorically recorded by the learned Single Judge that none of the petitioners had ever challenged the scheme at any Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined of the stages prescribed under the T.P. Act, 1976 and they approached this Court only after the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 has been passed by the Estate Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation asking the petitioners to vacate the land in question.
8. In these facts and circumstances of the present case, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are required to be examined. The learned counsel for the appellant made twofold submission to assail the judgment impugned. Firstly, the petitioners had entered into the land in question on a transfer made by the original owner and they were in occupation of the land in question since before the implementation of the T.P. Scheme. In one breath, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellants are purchasers of the land in question from the original owner and they have made construction over the same and in another, he would termed the petitioners as tenants of the original owner. However, none of the above contradictory submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant are substantiated from the record as admittedly there is no deed of transfer or the rent-deed executed in favour of the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined petitioner creating any right, title or interest over the land/properties in question.
9. Even if the petitioners are treated as the occupants of the land in question prior to the implementation of the T.P. Scheme and it is accepted that the constructions were raised by them, it is neither understandable nor acceptable as to why the petitioners would not raise any objection about carving out of the land in question for the purposes of expansion of T.P. Road (24 mtr. T.P. Road). The fact that the petitioners have kept silence over the years and have never agitated their rights before any Competent Authority or Court of Law is sufficient to discard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant about the petitioners being lawful occupants of the land/properties in question.
10. Coming to the last argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant about the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in passing the order impugned dated 21.05.2025, suffice is to say that Section-68 of the Act, 1976 confers power upon the appropriate authority to evict an occupant of the land in Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined question which has been identified as a public road. The proceedings under Rule 33 of the Rules, 1979 framed under the Act, 1976 are to be initiated by the appropriate authority, in the first instance, by serving a notice upon a person to be evicted requiring him to vacate the land, within a reasonable time specified in the notice. The further clauses of Sub-rule (1) of Rule-23 provides for the steps which can be taken by the appropriate authority to evict the person in occupation of the lands which are required for public utility services under the T.P. Scheme, including public road. The appropriate authority defined in Section-2(iii) reads that:-
2(iii) "appropriate authority", in relation to a development area, means an area development authority or an urban development authority, as the case may be;
11. We are also required to note Section-2(iv), which reads further that:-
2(iv) "area development authority" means an area development authority constituted under section 5 1 [and includes a local authority, designated as such under sub-section (1) of section 6 or Government company designated as such under section 6A];Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
12. A conjoint reading of clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section-2, defining "appropriate authority" and "area development authority", clearly indicates that the "area development authority" would mean and include a "local authority". Further, "local authority" in Section-2(xiv) would mean a Municipal Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as in force in the State of Gujarat. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation being a "local authority" within the meaning of the Act, 1976 would be included in the meaning of "appropriate authority"
defined under the Act, 1976.
13. The summary eviction power conferred under the "appropriate authority" can, thus, be exercised by the "appropriate authority". The question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant about the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is wholly without substance, inasmuch as, the Estate Officer had passed the order impugned and after the notice as per Rule-33 of Rules 1979, being the officer of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The contention of the learned counsel for the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1273/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined appellant that the Estate Officer of the Corporation could not have issued notice and passed the order impugned, inasmuch as, only the "appropriate authority" means that the Municipal Corporation could have issued such a notice or passed an order, is liable to be rejected being misconceived.
14. With the above, no infirmity can be attached to the order impugned. The appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
It goes without saying that the liberty reserved with the petitioners by the learned Single Judge would be available even after the dismissal of the present appeal.
15. Subsequently, the civil application for stay would not survive and hence, the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:50 IST 2025