Gujarat High Court
Ashokbhai Bhavanbhai Gediya vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1590/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1590 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9451 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9442 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9480 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
ASHOKBHAI BHAVANBHAI GEDIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance in Special Civil Application Nos.1590/2024 and 9451/2024:
MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH(2451) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NALANDA ACHARYA, LD. ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Appearance in Special Civil Application Nos.9442/2024 and 9480/2024:
MRS NASRIN N SHAIKH(2451) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS POOJA CHOUDHARY, LD. ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1
and learned advocate Mr.Kaushal Pandya waives service of
Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1590/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
2. The captioned writ petitions are filed challenging the
Notice dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure "A") issued under section
48-A, 67 and 68 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Act, 1976 ("TP Act" for short) read with Rule 33
of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules,
whereby the petitioners are directed to give peaceful and
vacant possession of subject premises, failing which appropriate
action under the provisions of the Act has been indicated.
3. All these writ petitions are filed seeking to direct the
respondent-corporation to reconsider the Preliminary Town
Planning Scheme No.3 (Karanj) by varying it qua revenue
survey No.27, Final Plot No.83 (Plot No.B-115, B-108, B-104,
B-111 respectively) of Village: Karanj, as per provisions under
sections 70 of the TP Act. Thus, it is case of the petitioners
that sanctioned Preliminary Town Planning Scheme qua
petitioners' property may be varied.
4. Since the issue involved in the captioned writ petitions
is challenge to the Notice dated 19.10.2023 and seeking
variation in the sanctioned Preliminary Town Planning Scheme
No.3 (Karanj), which is subject matter of Special Civil
Application No.9805 of 2024, and the facts, grounds, as also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1590/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
the contentions raised on behalf of respective parties being
similar, the operative portion of the judgement of Special Civil
Application No.9805 of 2024 shall be squarely applicable and
reproduced here under:-
"8. Considered the submissions and documents on record.
Facts, as referred hereinabove, are not in dispute and
therefore, they are not repeated. The petition challenges the
Notices dated 19.10.2023 and 26.10.2023. Under the said
Notices, the petitioners were directed to remove the
encroachment and Notices also refer to sanctioning of Final
Town Planning Scheme No.3 (Karanj) by Notification dated
09.07.1997. Prior to finalization of Town Planning Scheme
No.3, sanctioning of Draft Town Planning Scheme No.3
(Karanj) vide Notification dated 19.06.1983 and sanctioning of
Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.3 (Karanj) vide
Notification dated 14.07.1993, is not in dispute. Thus, upon
sanctioning of Draft Town Planning Scheme No.3, the land in
question as per Section 48-A of the T.P. Act, vest with
appropriate authority free from all encumbrances.
9. It is reiterated by the petitioners that they are in
possession of the subject premises since many years.
Accordingly, time was granted by the authority earlier and
thereafter vide notice dated 04.07.2024 to produce necessary
documents in relation to their sanctioning of lay out plan or
development permission in relation to their construction.
However, despite opportunities granted to produce documents
of ownership or of development permission, not a single
document was produced by the petitioners. Only reliance
placed is on taxes paid by the petitioners to the Municipal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1590/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Corporation. Moreover, possession receipt or payment of taxes
or electricity bills, will not justify title of the property.
Further, in absence any development permission, the
petitioners do not have vested right to retain the unauthorised
construction. Along with this petition, several documents by
way of paper-book have been produced and upon perusal, it
is found that they are the bills of property tax of electricity.
The possession (kabja)receipts, in the opinion of this Court
would not make the construction authorized. These facts in
the opinion of this court justifies nature of construction as
unauthorized.
10. On the aspect of providing opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners, it is noticed that before passing the order
dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure-R5 page 62), under section 67 of
the T.P. Act read with Rule 33 of the Town Planning Rules,
as directed by this court under order dated 03.07.2024 in
Special Civil Application No.9442 of 2024, all the stake
holders were given time to raise their objections. The
petitioners thus participated in the proceedings, however,
could not establish their cases by producing necessary
document in relation to their ownership and construction.
Therefore, the contention of breach of principles of natural
justice also does not merit acceptance. Further, finalization of
Town Planing Scheme No.3 (Karanj) vide Notification dated
09.09.1997 cannot be ignored. The photograph produced
suggest the use of premises as commercial.
11. In view of the above and in absence of any valid
document produced by the petitioners in relation to their
ownership and of construction carried out after due
permission, in the opinion of this court, the contentions on
behalf of petitioners does not merit acceptance. Therefore, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1590/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Notices issued to remove encroachment appears to be just and
legal. Since the petitioners are encroachers on subject land,
they shall not have any vested rights over the subject land
and they can not be permitted to use the unauthorised
construction indefinitely.
12. At this stage, it would be opposite to refer decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kaniz Ahmed
V/s. Sabuddin and others in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.12199-12200 of 2025, wherein it is held as under:
"7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while
dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not
readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of
buildings erected without requisite permissions of the
competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm
stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the
Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial
restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-
being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue
of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might
result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise,
if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to
disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent
effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly
society. [See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)."
13. Moreover, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and
another V/s. U P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others
reported in 2024 INSC 990, it is held as under:
"19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically
held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be
perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of
the Acts / Rules, it would be construed as illegal and
unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily
demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1590/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of
the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that
substantial money has been spent on the said construction.
The following decisions are of relevance and hence cited
herein below to drive home the point that unauthorized
constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not
kid gloves.
(i) In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal
Council, 1974 2 SCC 506 after having found that the
impugned resolution sanctioning plan for conversion of
building into a cinema was in violation of the Town
Planning Scheme and hence, it has no legal foundation, this
Court held that the High Court was wrong in not quashing
the resolution on the surmise that money might have been
spent. The relevant passage reads as follows:
"29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty
by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a
legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with
its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The scheme here
is for the benefit of the public. There is special interest in
the performance of the duty. All the residents in the area
have their personal interest in the performance of the duty.
The special and substantial interest of the residents in the
area is injured by the illegal construction.
xxx xxx xxx
14. In view of the above, the present petition being
devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and the same
is hereby dismissed. Interim relief earlier granted stands
vacated forthwith. Rule discharged. No cost."
5. In view of the above judgement, all these writ petitions
deserve to be dismissed and the same are hereby dismissed.
Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
Rule discharged. No cost. sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL...
