Gujarat High Court
Ikhlak Istiyakbhai Shaikh vs Deputy Estate Officer on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/524/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 524 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17559 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 524 of 2025
==========================================================
IKHLAK ISTIYAKBHAI SHAIKH
Versus
DEPUTY ESTATE OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
V A DARBAR(7429) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
wherein the challenge to the notice under Section 260(1) and
the order under Section 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 has been upturned with the
observations that the notice dated 16.09.2023 under Section
260(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act
refers to construction of shed erected subsequently. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/524/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
offending construction as referred in the notice dated
16.09.2023 is to be removed. The action taken by the GPMC
for issuing notice under Section 260(1) and followed by the
order under Section 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial
Municipal Corporation Act is well within its jurisdiction and
the petition deserves dismissal.
2. The contention of the petitioner that the shed/ area for
which notice was issued, was occupied prior to the year 2006
[incorporation of the area and municipal limits] was rejected
as unacceptable for the reason that the petitioner is in
possession of the subject property, which fact is not in
dispute. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of
provisions of Section-253 and Section-254 of the Gujarat
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 to note that the
said provisions require a notice to be given to the
Commissioner of intention to erect a building and no such
notice given by the petitioner, in the instance case, is
available.
3. When the matter was taken up on 30.04.2025 in the
present appeal, it was brought to the notice of the Court that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/524/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the writ petitioner herein/ appellant has moved an application
under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized
Development Act, 2022 for regularization of the constructions
and the said application is pending. The matter was, thus,
adjourned with the observation that the application moved by
the original petitioner/ appellant shall be considered in
accordance with law after providing due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner herein. By means of the affidavit
dated 15.07.2025, filed in the Court today by Mr. Deep D.
Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent -
Corporation, the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the
competent authority under the Gujarat Regularization of
Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 has been placed on
record.
4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no interference is
required in the present appeal which was directed against the
order of the learned Single Judge in upturning the challenge
to the notice under Section 260(1) read with the order passed
under Section 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949, for the reasons given therein.
However, it is kept open for the petitioner herein/ appellant to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/524/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
challenge the order dated 07.07.2025 of rejection of the
application under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized
Development Act, 2022 for regularization of the construction,
by bringing his independent action, in accordance with law. In
case of such a challenge, the dismissal of the present writ
petition or the present appeal will not come in the way of the
petitioner. The present appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
Consequently, the Civil Application for interim relief
would not survive and the same is disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
