Prashantchandra Tribhovandas Modi vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 302 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Prashantchandra Tribhovandas Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 11 January, 2024

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/LPA/288/2018                           ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

                                                                                undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 288 of 2018
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8904 of 2015
                              With
     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 288 of 2018
                              With
            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 291 of 2018
         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8906 of 2015
                              With
     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 291 of 2018
         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8906 of 2015
==========================================================
                   PRASHANTCHANDRA TRIBHOVANDAS MODI
                                 Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BHAVESH B CHOKSHI(3109) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR. VISHRUT R JANI(6696) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                        Date : 11/01/2024
                        COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Both these appeals are arising out of a common

order and hence have been heard and are being decided

by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are directed against the common

judgment and order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the

learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions

noticing that the writ petitions were directed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/288/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

against the notices issued by respondent No.4

Municipality calling upon the petitioners to remove

the illegal encroachments/constructions made by them

on 12 meter wide T.P. Road going towards the Railway

Station. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that

though it was contended by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners

have not made any encroachment on the T.P. road and

they are having their shops in the Shopping Center

built by the municipality itself, but there is no

clarity either in the writ petitions or in any of the

documents produced along with the writ petitions, to

substantiate the said contention. The further finding

is that on the contrary, from the photograph and the

map produced by the respondent authorities, it was

evident that there is an encroachment on T.P. road in

question. It was further noted that even if it is

believed that the shops in question were leased out

to the petitioners, the land forming part of the T.P.

road under the preliminary scheme sanctioned by the

State Government would absolutely vest in the

respondent authority.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/288/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

3. It was noted that no objection was raised by the

petitioners before the appropriate authority under

Section 47 of the Act on the publication of the draft

scheme. The final Town Planning Scheme had been

sanctioned by the State Government and it has become

part of the Act. It was, thus, concluded that the

respondent No.4 Municipality, which is the implementing

authority, is empowered to summarily evict the

petitioners who are in illegal occupation of the lands

in question for implementation of the scheme.

4. Challenging these findings returned by the

learned Single Judge, only this much is submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioners that the show

cause notice dated 29.04.2015 does not state the

nature of occupation of the petitioners. There is no

mention therein that the petitioners are in illegal

occupation of the shops in question. However, the

fact remains that as per own case of the petitioners,

as submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners during the course of argument,

the lease of the shops in question had not been

renewed after the year 2017. We may note that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/288/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024

undefined

statement that the lease of the shops in question was

extended till the year 2017 is not substantiated by

any material on record. A further perusal of the

notice indicates that it is categorically stated

therein that the land of the road-line has been

illegally occupied by the petitioners and as a result

of occupation of the petitioners, the width of 12

meter T.P. road has been decreased, which is causing

hindrance to traffic. The notice categorically

indicates that the petitioners were called upon to

remove their illegal construction over the land in

question or else the same would be removed by the

municipality at their expense.

5. Taking note of the findings returned by the

learned Single Judge as also the contents of the

notice, we do not find it a fit case for

interference. The appeals are dismissed being devoid

of merits. Consequently, connected Civil Applications

also stand disposed of.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J) GAURAV J THAKER