[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[and includes a local authority, designated as such
under sub-section (1) of section 6 or Government
company designated as such under section 6A];
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
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
