Gujarat High Court
Rohit Prahaladji Thakore vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9803 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
==================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==================================================
ROHIT PRAHALADJI THAKORE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 09/07/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting
aside the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 -
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').
2. The facts are to the following effect:
2.1 According to the petitioner, the petitioner and his family members
are in occupation and possession of land bearing revenue survey no.3/2
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
admeasuring 5160 square meters situated at Village Bodakdev, Taluka
Daskroi, District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in
question'). Father of the petitioner, namely, Prahladji Manaji Thakor,
executed a sale deed dated 03.01.2006 in favour of Pursottam Ramani
a non-agriculturist and according to the petitioner, the said sale deed,
was not genuine. Also, the petitioner had undivided share in the land in
question and by misrepresentation and fraud, the said sale deed has
been executed. Thereafter, Purshottam Ramani executed another sale
deed dated 10.09.2008 in favour of Gala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The
petitioners since aggrieved, filed a Special Civil Suit no.461 of 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "the Suit") challenging the sale deed dated
10.09.2008 executed by Pursottam Ramani in favour of Gala
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
2.2 The Corporation has introduced Town Planning Scheme no.50
(Bodakdev) (hereinafter referred to as "the T.P. Scheme") and by virtue
of the said T.P. Scheme, deduction was effected in the land in question.
The petitioner has received notices from the Corporation inviting
objections under the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1976")
and have accordingly lodged his objections on 27.12.2016 pointing out
that the petitioner and his family members are in possession of the land
in question, paying regular taxes etc. It was also brought to the notice of
the Corporation that the Suit is also pending and it was urged that since
the petitioner and his family members are residing over it, the
possession of the land may not be taken.
2.3 The Corporation by passing the order dated 26.4.2017, rejected
the objections of the petitioner on the ground that the revenue survey
no.3/2, has already been allotted final plot no.9 and as per the
provisions of clause (b) of Section 67 of the Act of 1976, all the rights in
the original plots which have been reconstituted in final plots, have
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
ceased and the same shall be subject to the rights settled by the Town
Planning Officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed captioned writ
petition.
3. The Corporation, upon issuance of the notice, has filed replies. It
has been stated that after following the due procedure under the Act of
1976, the T.P. Scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government
vide notification dated 19.12.2011 and the same has already come into
force. It further states that for the land bearing survey no.3/2 owners
have been allotted plot no.9. It is the case of the Corporation that the
land in question, has been reserved for sale for residential (final plot
no.357) and small part in final plot no.354 for the Socially &
Economically Weaker Sections Housing. Further, the town planning
road having width of 18 meters and 12 meters have been carved out
from the part of the land in question.
3.1 It has been further stated that upon sanctioning of the T.P. Scheme
and by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1976, it has already come
into force and therefore, the land in question would vest with the
appropriate authority for public purpose. Accordingly, notice dated
16.04.2014 came to be issued under the provisions of Sections 67 and
68 of the Act of 1976 read with rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning
and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules') which was duly served upon the petitioner on 25.11.2016. It has
also been stated that the authority concerned is obligated to implement
the T.P. Scheme and therefore, for removing the encroachments, notice
dated 04.11.2016 was pasted on the site; however, the petitioner taking
advantage of that notice, has sought to create right in his favour.
Further, the other documents produced by the petitioner were
scrutinized in detail; however, it was found that the documents were of
different properties and the land in question which has been designated
final plot no.9, belongs to different owners. It is therefore, stated that the
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
petition filed, is bereft of any details and particulars substantiating the
valid and legal title in favour of the petitioner; however, after affording
sufficient opportunity, the order dated 26.04.2017 has been passed,
which is in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1976. The petition
does not deserve to be interfered with.
4. Mr. H.J. Karathia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Assistant
Estate Officer (New West Zone) of the Corporation is a non-speaking
order, because, it has not dealt with the objections of the petitioners. It
is submitted that without properly considering the objections of the
petitioner, the Corporation is implementing the scheme in illegal
manner, and he has been deprived of his property, since the petitioner
has not been given possession of separate final plot which the petitioner
otherwise is entitled for. It is submitted that the order dated 26.04.2017,
would result into eviction of the petitioner and therefore, the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.1 It is further submitted that notice has been issued to the petitioner
requiring him to lodge the objections and the petitioner has submitted
his objections. It was pointed out that the land in question is an
ancestral land and in possession of the petitioner and his family
members. Everything was pointed out to the Corporation including the
factum of institution of the Suit and its pendency; however, the
Corporation without considering the objections of the petitioner, has
passed the order on 26.04.2017, requiring the petitioner to hand over
the possession, as a result of which, the petitioner and his family
members would be evicted from the land in question.
4.2 It is next submitted that the Corporation has not properly
implemented the T.P. Scheme because the petitioner has not been
given a final plot though the possession of the land in question was
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
taken from the petitioner. The Corporation ought to have appreciated
that the petitioner being the owner of the land in question has not sold
his part of the property to anyone and the sale deed executed in favour
of Pursottam Ramani is nothing but perpetration of fraud. It is submitted
that the Corporation ought to have taken into consideration the factum
of pendency of the Suit before the Civil Court. Hence, it has not properly
considered the written objections submitted by the petitioner and
therefore the order of the Corporation is bad.
4.3 Mr. Karathia, learned advocate urged that the petitioner is
pressing prayer 12B whereby, he has sought for the protection of the
remaining property. It is submitted that the petitioner has categorically
prayed for direction, restraining the Corporation from taking the
possession only of the area of the land in question which is covered in
the T.P. Scheme and not evicting the petitioner from the remaining part
of the land in question, which is not covered under the T.P. Scheme. It
is therefore, urged that considering the totality of the facts, the order
dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Corporation, deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate
appearing for the Corporation, at the outset, submitted that the T.P.
Scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government vide notification
dated 19.12.2011 and it has already come into force. While inviting the
attention to the redistribution form, it is submitted that survey no.3/2 has
been given final plot no.9 admeasuring 3091 square meters. It is
submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the land in question,
because the redistribution form has been prepared on the basis of 7/12
form and as per the details available in 7/12 form, the land in question is
in the name of Pursottam Ramani. It is submitted that the petitioner has
laid emphasis on the notice dated 04.11.2016, however, it contains the
details of the owner/occupier as "house no.35" and was not
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
addressed to the petitioner at all. Further, the notice was served by
affixation which is clear from the endorsement at the bottom of the
notice in vernacular, english translation whereof reads "served by
affixation, 25.11.2016'. It is submitted that the petitioner taking
advantage of the said notice, has filed his objection and the Corporation
after considering the objections has passed the order dated 26.04.2017.
5.1 It is submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners were
rejected because the land in question has been vested with the
authority, free from all encumbrances by the virtue of provisions of
Section 67 of the Act of 1976. It is further submitted that as per the
revenue record and the evidence tendered by the petitioner, they do not
substantiate the claim of the petitioner. The electricity bill and tax bill
produced by the petitioner are self-contradictory. It is submitted that the
petition filed, is bereft of any legal and valid title or even having any
permission. Moreover, the petition is totally silent as regards any
objections having been raised by the petitioner during the stages of
framing of town planning scheme. Therefore, the grievance raised by
the petitioner in the present writ petition is bereft of any merits.
5.2 It is further submitted that, it is required to be noted that the
petitioner has neither challenged the T.P. Scheme nor has prayed to
allot the final plot and the reliefs are restricted qua protecting the
possession of the areas covered under the scheme. In absence of any
challenge to the T.P. Scheme and petitioner having failed to establish
as to how the implementation of the T.P. Scheme is beyond the
sanctioned scheme, the present petition cannot be entertained.
Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to establish that he is in
possession of the land in question and prays for his entitlement to which
part of the land. It is submitted that the petitioner claims to be the owner
of the property and has disputed execution of the sale deed in favour of
Pursottam Ramani for which the Suit challenging the sale deed was
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
filed in the year 2013; however, no injunction has been granted in the
said proceedings. Moreover, the Corporation has not been added as
respondent in the said Suit proceedings. As against this, the present
petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Corporation on the
ground that the petitioner and his family members are in occupation and
in possession of the land in question. Filing of present petition is nothing
but an afterthought only with a view to abusing the Court process.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well.
5.3 While adverting to the aspect of the preliminary T.P. Scheme, it is
submitted that it has been sanctioned in the year 2011 and the land in
question, i.e. survey no.3/2 was assigned final plot no.9 and the owners
are allotted final plots by earmarking the boundaries. It is submitted that
the town planning roads have been carved out having width of 18
meters and 12 meters, therefore, also by virtue of the provisions of the
Act of 1976, the land has already been vested in the competent
authority. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Municipal
Corporation for Greater Bombay vs. Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd
reported in AIR 1972 SC 793. It is submitted that the Apex Court, in
para 12, while considering the provisions of Bombay Town Planning
Act, 1954, has observed that the Corporation is exclusively entrusted
with the duty of framing and implementing the scheme, for which, it has
been invested with almost plenary powers. It is submitted that it is well
settled proposition of law that once the scheme is sanctioned, it is the
bounden duty of the appropriate authority to implement the scheme in
the same manner as sanctioned. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment in case of Kashiberi Wd./o Pitambar Devchand vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 1989 (2) G.L.H. 246. It is submitted that this Court,
while referring to the earlier judgment in the case of Saiyed Mohammed
vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in (1977) 18 GLR 549
has held that the preliminary scheme having been sanctioned, it
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
becomes the part of the Act and the same cannot be questioned. For
the proposition of belated challenge, reliance is also placed on the
judgment in case of Babulal Badriprasad Varma vs. Surat Municipal
Corporation reported in 2008 (3) G.L.H. 137. It is submitted that the
Apex Court has held that a person interested in continuing to keep
possession over a property and/or a part of the amount of
compensation, must lay his claim before the appropriate authority at the
appropriate stage. It is therefore, urged that considering the facts and
the law on issue, the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
6. Heard, Mr. H.J. Karathia, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent no.1 and Mr.Deep Vyas, learned advocate for the
respondent no.2 - Corporation and considered the documents
available on the record.
7. The petitioner, in the captioned writ petition, has prayed for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by
the Assistant Estate Officer (New West Zone), directing the petitioner
to hand over the possession. The petitioner has also prayed for
direction to the Corporation to implement the T.P. Scheme in the
manner in which it is framed with further direction to the Corporation
to take possession of the part of the area of the land in question
which is covered in the T.P. Scheme and not to evict the petitioner
from the remaining part of the land in question. Perceptibly, the
reliefs prayed for by the petitioner is limited to the extent that the
petitioner be not evicted from the remaining part of the land in
question not covered under the T.P. Scheme.
8. As is discernible from the record and not disputed by the
petitioner, after following the requisite procedure under the Act of
1976, the preliminary T.P. Scheme has been sanctioned by the State
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
Government vide notification no.GH/V/200 of 2011/TPS/112008-
3936-N dated 19.12.2011 and by virtue of provisions of the Act of
1976, it has already come into force. Section 67 of the Act of 1976
provides for the effect of preliminary scheme. It also provides that
after the preliminary scheme comes into force, all lands shall vest
absolutely in the appropriate authority, free from all encumbrances.
This Court, in the case of Kashiberi Wd/o. Pitamber Devchand
(supra) has held that the preliminary scheme cannot be a subject
matter of a writ proceedings unless otherwise it comes within the
parameters mentioned in the decision of the Full Bench in the case
of Dungarlal vs. State reported in (1976) 17 GLR 1152. In paragraph
6 and 7, it has been observed thus: -
"6. In yet another Full Bench decision of our High Court in the case of
Saiyed Mohamed v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, reported in
(1977) 18 Guj LR 549: (AIR 1978 Guj 82) the Full Bench, dealing with the
impugned notice of eviction observed:
"In view of S. 53, once property has vested absolutely in the local
authority and all rights of these persons occupying the same have
come to an end, the eviction power would be merely an
administrative power of eviction. Such eviction would be of the
same nature as of the persons who are evicted under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act after the acquired land has vested in the
State and the matter is only of taking possession."
In this decision, the Full Bench has observed, that, once the land vests
with the authority concerned as per the Scheme, the Scheme has become
a legislative measure under which the rights of the parties have totally
ceased to occupy the property and the power of eviction in such a context
would be in the nature of an administrative power and, therefore, when
the parties admittedly have no right under the final scheme to continue
their occupation, they could never invoke any prejudice or consideration
of the principle of fair play and justice so as to have these impugned
notices invalidated.
7. Considering the above said decisions and also the fact that the
preliminary Scheme has been already sanctioned as early as 27-10-1980,
which has become the part of the Act, the same cannot be questioned as
late as in the year 1988."
This Court, while referring to the judgment in case of Saiyed
Mohammed Abdulmiya (Supra) held that the preliminary scheme,
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
having been sanctioned becomes the part of the Act and the same
cannot be questioned at a belated stage. This Court, while referring
to the provisions of section 67 of the Act of 1976, has held and
observed that not only the lands included in the preliminary scheme
vest absolutely in the appropriate authority, but the preliminary
scheme shall have effect as if it were enacted in the Act. Therefore,
the preliminary T.P. Scheme having been sanctioned by the State
Government vide notification dated 19.12.2011 it has become part of
the Act. Further, the lands having been included in the preliminary
T.P. Scheme, vest absolutely in the appropriate authority. After the
finalization of the preliminary T.P. Scheme, the obligation of the
Corporation is limited to issuance of notice under the provisions of
Section 68 of the Act read with rule 33 of the Rules and pass the
order after hearing and considering the objections lodged by the
party concerned.
9. At this juncture, the judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Babulal Badriprasad Varma (Supra) is also worth referring to. While
dealing with somewhat similar controversy, it has been observed that a
person interested in continuing to keep the possession over a property
and/ or a part of the amount of compensation must lay his claim before
the appropriate authority at appropriate stage. If in absence of any such
claim laid by party, and the authorities having proceeded to finalize the
allotment, it would be too late to contend that the scheme requires to be
reopened. In the case before the Apex Court, the appellant was a
tenant and was running a business of marble and stone on the plot
no.17/8 admeasuring 1067 square meters. Road widening project was
proposed in terms of town planning scheme and notices were issued to
the appellant and the landlord. The appellant objected; however, did not
pursue his case about the proposal for widening of the road. As a result
of the finalization of the scheme, the respondent no.4 - the landlord was
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
allotted a final plot and the plot of the ownership of the landlord, was
merged in another final plot no.165 owned by the respondent no.3
therein. The scheme was notified and the authority, in terms of the Act,
issued a notice under Section 67 of the Act; however, since the
concerned respondent did not appear, a notice under Section 68 of the
Act was served. The appellant being aggrieved, had challenged the
notice before the High Court contending that the purported final
allotment of the plot in favour of the respondent no.3 and the allotment
of final plot in favour of the respondent no.4 were made without issuing
any notice as envisaged under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act. The writ
petition before the High Court was dismissed and intra court appeal filed
by the appellant met with the same fate. The Apex Court, while
dismissing the appeal has observed that a person interested in
continuing to keep the possession over a property and/or part of the
amount of compensation must lay his claim before the appropriate
authority at the appropriate stage, failing to do so, it would be assumed
that the person, has waived his right disentitling himself from obtaining
an equitable relief particularly, when a party allows a thing to come to
irreversible situation. In case of Babulal Badriprasad Varma (Supra) the
Apex Court in paragraphs 22, 24, 27 and 31 has observed and held
thus:
"22. A person interested in continuing to keep possession over a
property and/ or a part of the amount of compensation must lay his claim
before the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage.
24. A person may waive a right either expressly or by necessary
implication. He may in a given case disentitle himself from obtaining an
equitable relief particularly when he allows a thing to come to an
irreversible situation.
27. We are, however, not unmindful of the fact that a statute of town
planning ex facie is not a statute for acquisition of a property. An owner
of a plot is asked to part therewith only for providing for better facilities of
which he would also be a beneficiary. Every step taken by the State
does not involve application of the doctrine of eminent domain.
In this case, the appellant did not oppose the draft scheme. It accepted
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
that the State had a right to do so. Existence of a public purpose and
increase in the valuation of the property was admitted. There exists a
distinction in the action of the planning authority as regards vesting of a
property in it and one so as to enable it to create a third party interest
vis-`- vis for the purpose of re-allotment thereof. In the former case, the
vesting of the land may be held to be an act of acquisition, whereas in
the latter, it would be distribution of certain benefits having regard to the
purpose sought to be achieved by a statute involving town planning. It
was on that legal principle, this Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal
Mangaldas & Ors. [1969 (3) SCR 341], opined that when a development
is made, the owner of the property gets much more than what would
have he got, if the same remained undeveloped in the process as by
reason thereof he gets the benefit of living in a developed town having
good town planning.
31. It is not a case where the State by its acts of omissions and
commissions was unjustly enriching itself. It was a dispute between two
private parties as regards the right to obtain final allotment; the principles
underlying the same are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the
distribution of quantum thereof between two competing claimants, viz.,
landlord and tenant. We do not mean to say that under no circumstances
the appellant was entitled to allotment of a portion of the property or
mandatory compensation in lieu thereof from the landlord. But, we intend
to emphasise that he has lost his right to enforce the same in a public law
forum. He has no enforceable claim against the State at this juncture. He
may pursue his claim only against the respondent No. 4 in an appropriate
proceeding wherein for certain purposes the State or the authorities may
also be impleaded as a party. Even if he had a claim, he would be
deemed to have waived the same for the reasons stated hereinafter."
10. The controversy in the present case, revolves around the land
in question, that is, land bearing survey no.3/2. As is evident from the
record, the land in question has been allotted original plot no.9,
which has been reconstituted as final plot no.9 which comprises in
final plot no.357 reserved for the purpose of sale for residential and a
small part comprises in final plot no.354 earmarked for Socially &
Economically Weaker Section Housing; town planning road having
width of 18 meters and 12 meters have also been carved out from
final plot no.9. During the finalization of the preliminary T.P. Scheme,
redistribution form was prepared based on the record including 7/12
form. The owner and occupier has been allotted final plot in lieu of
survey no.3/2. Indisputably, the petitioner has never ever raised any
objection during the finalization of the preliminary T.P.Scheme.
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
11. Pertinently, the petitioner did not raise any objection against
the finalization of the preliminary T.P. Scheme, and it is only when
the notice was issued under section 68 of the Act of 1976 read with
rule 33 of the Rules that the petitioner has raised the objection, inter
alia, pointing out that the land in question is ancestral land and that
the petitioner is having undivided share. Such objection raised by the
petitioner is not at appropriate stage. It is required to be noted that
together with the reply, the petitioner has produced the documents
namely, (i) the copy of the plaint of the Suit (ii) electricity bill issued
by the Torrent Power Limited (iii) property tax bill issued by
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and (iv) copy of the sale deed. So
far as Suit is concerned, it is filed challenging the execution of the
registered sale deeds in the years 2006 and 2008 in favour of the
Pursottam Ramani and Gala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. respectively,
however, no relief or protection has been extended in favour of the
petitioner and therefore, pendency of the Suit is of no assistance to
the petitioner. So far as the electricity bill and property tax bill are
concerned, there are discrepancies in the addresses mentioned
inasmuch as, in the property tax bill, the address shown is of 'Lady
Talav Near Bodakdev Gam' whereas in the electricity bill the address
is of "Kalamata No Vas, Near Om Arcade, Bodakdev Gam".
Addresses mentioned in the property tax bill so also in the electricity
bill do not match, therefore, the documents which were produced by
the petitioner in support of his claim were rightly not accepted.
Reliance is also placed on the notice dated 04.11.2016, which
mentions the "house no.35' and the details of the land in question,
namely, survey no.3/2, original plot number and final plot number.
Pertinently, the said notice was not addressed to the petitioner, but
was issued for the purpose of removal of encroachment. Hence, the
learned advocate for the Corporation is right in contending that to lay
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
the claim, the petitioner has tried to take advantage of the same.
Therefore, the Corporation is justified in contending that the petition
is bereft of any details and/ or particulars showing the legal and valid
title or even the permission in favour of the petitioner, being entitled
for allotment of the plot.
12. Perceptibly, after considering the reply of the petitioner, the
Corporation, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 68 of
the Act read with rule 33 of the Rules, has passed the order dated
26.04.2017. The order, states about the reconstitution of the survey
no.3/2 wherein, it has been reconstituted as final plot no.9. It also
records that as per the provisions of the clause (b) of sub-section 67 of
the Act of 1976, the rights in the original plots which have been
reconstituted into final plot shall determine and final plot shall become
subject to rights settled by the Town Planning Officer and therefore, the
owner ceases to be the owner of the original plot. Clearly, the notice
was issued in exercise of the powers under Section 68 of the Act read
with rule 33 of the Rules, which speaks about implementation of the
town planning scheme after publication of the preliminary scheme.
13. It is well settled that the authority under the Act of 1976 exercises
a quasi-judicial power which implies observing of the principles of
natural justice and to conclude that the occupants are not entitled to
occupy the plots. In the present case, it is not even the case of the
petitioner that he has not been offered any opportunity of hearing. On
the contrary, the Corporation, after considering the response of the
petitioner and in-depth consideration, has passed order dated
26.04.2017. Evidently, the petitioner has not been able to point out as to
how the said order is erroneous. Further, the contents of the order
clearly suggest that the same is speaking order and exhibits application
of mind by the Corporation as it has considered all the relevant material.
The petitioner has also not been able to point out as to how the order is
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
based on an extraneous consideration or that material germane to the
decision has not been considered. Therefore, it cannot be said that
while passing the order, extraneous and irrelevant material has weighed
with the Corporation. Moreover, once the scheme is sanctioned by the
State Government, the obligation on the part of the authority is to
implement it in the manner as it has been sanctioned.
14. As has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner
that the petitioner is pressing part of the prayer 12B seeking direction to
the Corporation to take possession of the only part of the area of the
land in question covered under the scheme and to return the remaining
part of the land not covered under the scheme; however, the petitioner
has lost sight of the fact that original plot no.9 was allotted final plot no.9
and from some portion, 18 and 12 meters roads have been carved out
and some portion has been reserved for sale for residential and a small
portion is reserved for Socially Economically Weaker Section Housing
(SEWSH). As per the record of rights, the land in question carries the
names of different owners and who have been allotted final plot.
Besides, the petitioner has prayed for direction not to evict the petitioner
from the remaining part of the land; however, the petitioner has not
been able to point out any documents in support of his ownership
except the filing of the Suit before the Civil Court, however, the said
Suit, was filed in the year 2013, which is pending without any relief in
favour of the petitioner and that too after the sanctioning of the
preliminary T.P. Scheme in the year 2011. Other documents also do not
substantiate the claim of the petitioner.
15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
provisions of law and applicable principles, no error has been
committed by the Corporation in passing the order dated 26.04.2017
inasmuch as, the same has been passed after affording necessary
opportunity to the petitioner and in conformity with the provisions of
C/SCA/9803/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2021
Section 68 of the Act of 1976 read with rule 33 of the Rules. Therefore,
the prayers prayed for by the petitioner do not deserve to be acceded to
and are hereby rejected.
16, Accordingly, the petition is not entertained and the same is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
URIL RANA
