Gujarat High Court
Savitaben Vinodchandra Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 17 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/287/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 287 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8903 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 287 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 289 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8905 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 289 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8905 of 2015
==========================================================
SAVITABEN VINODCHANDRA MODI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVYARAJ GOHIL for 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 MOHSIN A. SHAIKH for 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 : 17/01/2024
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/287/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024
undefined
dismissing the writ petitions noticing that the writ petitions were
directed 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/287/2018 ORDER DATED: 17/01/2024
undefined
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 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.)
cmk
