Dismissed

Transportnagar - Aslali v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Gujarat HC6 May 2019SCA/16026/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed an SCA filed by an association challenging a draft Town Planning Scheme for land it acquired from AUDA. The Court held that the petitioner failed to raise objections during the statutory period and noted the scheme was already sanctioned.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, the notice was discharged, and the interim relief was vacated.

Transportnagar - Aslali Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development… — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16026 of 2013

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

TRANSPORTNAGAR - ASLALI

¶6

Versus

¶7

AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 3 other(s)

¶8

========================================================== Appearance:

¶9

MR M. C. BHATT, ADVOCATE for MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶10

MS JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶13

Date : 06/05/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1. The petitioner who happens to be the association registered under Non-Trading Corporation Act, has filed the present petition seeking mainly following reliefs:

¶16

“(A) Quashing and setting aside the draft TP Scheme No.129 (Aslali Jetalpur) in so far as it relates to the land covered by Annexure-A or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the Government of Gujarat from approving and sanctioning the impugned draft TP scheme and further be pleased to restrain the respondent nos.1 and 2 from implementing and enforcing the draft

¶17

Page 1 of 15

¶18

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶19

TP scheme to the extent of land covered by Annexure-A and further be pleased to direct AUDA to allot one final plot against 20 parcels of land described in Annexure-A without making any deduction.

¶20

6(AA). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ order or directing quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dated 02.12.2013 issued by the Government of Gujarat under section 48(1) of the Town Planning Act at Annexure-M so far as it relates to the questioned land.”

¶21

 2.The short facts giving rise to the present
petition are that the respondent no.1-
Ahmedabad UrbanDevelopmentAuthority
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AUDA’ for short)
had acquired in all 173000 sq. mtrs. of land
situated at village-Aslali for the purpose of
providing infrastructure to the transporters.
The petitioner Association negotiated with

¶22

AUDA for the allotment of said land for its
members to construct godowns, offices etc.

¶23

Page 2 of 15

¶24

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶25

Ultimately, the AUDA agreed to allot 77000

¶26

sq. mtrs., land out of the total land of
173000 sq. mtrs. The agreement between the
petitioner- Association and the AUDA was
entered into on 10.02.1992 incorporating

¶27

terms and conditions for the allotment of the
said land (Annexure-B). Accordingly, the
possession of the said land was handed over
to the petitioner Association vide possession
receipt dated 21.02.1992.

¶28

 3.It is further case of the petitioner that the
petitioner had submitted a plan for
development of the land under the Gujarat
Town Planning Urban Development Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’)

¶29

and AUDA had granted the development
permission for constructing godowns, offices
etc. as per the development permission dated
04.04.1994. Since, the litigation was pending

¶30

at various stages, the AUDA ultimately had
executed the sale-deed on 21.06.2003 in

¶31

Page 3 of 15

¶32

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶33

favourofthepetitioner-Association
(Annexure-F), however, for some reasons, the
registration was delayed and the said sale-
deed was finally registered on 20.07.2009.
Since, the name of the AUDA was appearing in

¶34

the revenue record, a dispute was raised by
the petitioner for entering the name of the
petitioner, pursuant to the sale-deed
executed by the AUDA. Since, some of the
lands in question were originally restricted
tenure land, the petitioner had preferred
Special Civil Application No.6000/2012. The
petition was disposed off by the Court vide
order dated 26.06.2012 permitting the
petitioner to make appropriate application to
the concerned authority. Accordingly, the
petitioner had made representation to the
concerned authority, however, on technical
ground, the authority refused to entertain
the said representation.

¶35

4. The petitioner again filed Special Civil

¶36

Page 4 of 15

¶37

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶38

Application No.2485 of 2013, in which, the
Court had issued notice to the concerned
authority. According to the petitioner, after

¶39

execution of the sale-deed in favour of the
petitioner by the AUDA, the petitioner had
allotted in all 274 plots to different
persons, who were engaged in the business of
transportation and were the members of the
petitioner association. About 70% of the
members of the petitioner- association had
constructed godwons, offices and other
infrastructure facilities pursuant to the
development permission granted by the AUDA
and all common amenities like compound wall,

¶40

internal roads etc. were set up by the
petitioner- association on the said land. The
petitioner thereafter came to know that some
parcels of land out of the entire area
purchased by the petitioner were covered
under the TP Scheme No.129 (Aslali-Jetalpur).

¶41

The petitioner also came to know that the
some final plots were sought to be allotted

¶42

Page 5 of 15

¶43

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶44

out of the land covered under TP Scheme and

¶45

the said Final plots were sought to be
alloted to AUDA and not to the petitioner
association. The petitioner also came to know
that the some portion of the questioned land

¶46

was included in the reservation for the
purpose of commercial sale and some portion
for the purpose of providing housing to the
people belonging to the Economically Weaker
Section of the Society.

¶47

5. According to the petitioner, few days before filing of the present petition, some persons posing themselves to be the representatives

¶48

of respondent no.3 came to the gate of the
Transportnagar. They were accompanied by
their security guards and threatened the
members of the petitioner association to
demolish their buildings with bulldozers. The
petitionerthereaftersoughtcertain

¶49

information from the AUDA under the Right to
Information Act, which was received on

¶50

Page 6 of 15

¶51

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶52

14.10.2013. Thereafter, being aggrieved by
the said draft TP Scheme No.129 (Aslali-
Jetalpur), in so far as it related to the
land of the petitioner association, present
petition has been filed.

¶53

The respondent No.1- AUDA has filed affidavit in reply denying the allegations and averments made in the petition and stating inter alia, that the land admeasuring 77000

¶54

sq. mtrs. carved out from the various revenue
block numbers 933/P and others of village
Aslali, was sold by AUDA to the petitioner
association through registered sale-deed
dated 02.07.2009. Thereafter, the AUDA had
consulted Chief Town Planner on the issue of
proposed draft TP Scheme No.129 (Aslali-
Jetalpur) as per the provision contained in
section 41(1) of the said Act and after
following the procedure, the objections to
the said draft scheme were invited from the

¶55

public at large. Thereafter, the said

¶56

Page 7 of 15

¶57

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶58

objections were considered and notification

¶59

dated 20.09.2012 was published in the
Government Gazette under the provision
contained in Section 42(1) of the said Act.
Even the public notices in two Gujarati

¶60

dailies i.e. ‘Divya Bhaskar’ and ‘Sandesh’
were published on 30.09.2012 inviting
objections/ suggestions from the affected
parties before forwarding of the proposal of

¶61

the draft TP Scheme under section 48 of the
said Act. Ultimately, the proposal of draft
TP Scheme No.129 was forwarded alongwith
letter dated 28.02.2013 for further action.
The respondent no.2 sanctioned the said draft

¶62

TP Scheme No.129 (Aslali- Jetalpur) under the
provisions of section 48(2) of the said Act.
The notification in that regard was published
on 02.12.2013. Thus, according to the said
respondent, all the owners and interested
parties were given sufficient opportunities
at each and every stage to submit their
objections/ suggestions and after following

¶63

Page 8 of 15

¶64

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶65

the due procedure, the proposal for draft TP
Scheme in question was sanctioned by the
respondent no.2. The petitioner having
submitted their representation after sanction
of the TP Scheme, the same could not be
considered.

¶66

 7.It is sought to be submitted by the learned
Advocate Mr.M.C.Bhatt appearing for the
learned Advocate Mr.Jigar P. Raval for the
petitioner that the petitioner having
purchased the land in question from AUDA for
the development of Transportnagar and the
AUDA having granted the permission to develop
the same by executing sale-deed in favour of
the petitioner association, the AUDA could
not have proposed the TP scheme covering the
land in question. He also submitted that the
petitioner- association was not aware about
the publication of the draft TP scheme and
therefore, had not raised the objections at
the relevant time, however subsequently, the

¶67

Page 9 of 15

¶68

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶69

petitioner having made representation, the
AUDA itself had examined the issue of

¶70

variation in the said draft TP scheme and had
submitted the proposal for variation to the
respondent No.2 for consideration. Pressing

¶71

into service the provisions contained in the
Town Planning Act, more particularly section
48-A of the said Act, he submitted that if
the part of the land in question vests in the
appropriate authority as per the sanctioned
draft scheme, no useful purpose would be
served by raising objections before the Town

¶72

Planning Officer, who as such has no
authority to vary the draft scheme. He
therefore, submitted that the respondent no.2
be directed to consider revised proposal made
by the AUDA treating the same as if the
preliminary scheme was sanctioned.

¶73

8. However, the learned Advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw

¶74

for the respondent no.1- AUDA, vehemently
submitted that the petitioner having failed

¶75

Page 10 of 15

¶76

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶77

to make representation or to raise objections
at the relevant time after publication of the
draft scheme, the same was sanctioned by the
Government, and that part of the said land in
question has already vested in the
appropriate authority. He submitted that the
Town Planning Officer has already been
appointed for implementation of the said
scheme and the petitioner association had
also failed to make representation before the
Town Planning Officer.

¶78

 9.Having regard to the submissions made by
learned Advocates for the parties and to the
documents on record, it appears that it is
not disputed that the petitioner association
had purchased the land admeasuring 77000 sq.
mtrs., out of the total land admeasuring
173000 sq. mtrs., belonging to AUDA situated
in the village Aslali, by executing a
registered sale-deed. It is also not disputed
that the petitioner association had not

¶79

Page 11 of 15

¶80

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶81

raised any objection against the draft TP
scheme No.129 after its publication as
contemplated under section 47 of the said
Act. It is also not disputed that the State
Government had already sanctioned the said

¶82

draft TP scheme under sub section 2 of
section 48 of the said Act. It appears that
part of the said land in question had already
been covered under the sanctioned draft
scheme, and shown as required for the purpose
of road and other purposes, which have vested
absolutely in the appropriate authority free
from all encumbrances by virtue of section
48-A of the said Act.

¶83

 10. There is no justification coming forth from

¶84

the petitioner association as to why it had
not raised objection after publication of the
draft scheme. The petitioner having failed to
do so, the proposal of draft scheme was
processed further and sanctioned by the
Governmentinaccordancewithlaw.

¶85

Page 12 of 15

¶86

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶87

Thereafter, the Town Planning Officer has
also been appointed for implementation of the
scheme under section 50 of the said Act.

¶88

 11. It cannot be gainsaid that the Town Planing

¶89

Officer has to subdivide the TP scheme into
preliminary scheme and final scheme as
contemplated under section 51 of the said
Act. In the preliminary scheme, the Town
Planning Officer after giving notice to the

¶90

persons affected by the scheme, has to define
and demarcate the areas allotted to or
reserved for any public purpose, or for the
purpose of appropriate authority and the
final plots. The Town Planning Officer after
giving notice, has to determine in a case in
which a final plot has to be allotted to
persons in ownership in common, the shares of
such persons as contemplated under section 52
of the said Act. The Town Planning Officer is
also empowered to make variation from the
draft scheme, if such variation is not of a

¶91

Page 13 of 15

¶92

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶93

substantial nature, as per the proviso to sub
section 3 of section 52 of the said Act. It

¶94

is pertinent to note that on the Town
Planning Officer having submitted the
preliminary scheme to the State Government

¶95

for sanction, the State Government may
sanction the preliminary scheme as submitted
or with such modifications, as may be
necessary, under section 65 of the said Act.
Thus, in view of such provisions contained in
the said Act, the petitioner could not have
challengedthedraftscheme,more

¶96

particularly when they had failed to raise
objections at the relevant time of the
publication of the draft scheme. In any case,
according to the petitioner, the AUDA has
proposed some modifications in the draft
scheme, which are pending for consideration
before the State Government. Under the
circumstances, the Court is not inclined to
exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

¶97

Page 14 of 15

¶98

C/SCA/16026/2013 ORDER

¶99

interfere with the said draft scheme
sanctioned by the State Government.

¶100

 12. In that view of the matter, the petition
being devoid of merits is dismissed. Notice
is discharged. Interim relief, granted
earlier stands vacated forthwith.

¶101

 13. At this juncture, the learned Advocate
Mr.Jigar Raval for the petitioner has
requested to continue the status quo for
sometime to enable the petitioner to approach
the Higher Forum. The said request for
extension of interim relief, is rejected for
the reasons stated above.

¶102

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶103

TUVAR

¶104

Page 15 of 15

Transportnagar - Aslali v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transportnagar - Aslali v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaitanya S/O. Pratik Sharma through Guardian Vs State of Gujarat

Dr.Alpesh Harishbhai Purohit Vs the Registrar

Dr.Alpesh Harishbhai Purohit Vs the Registrar

Dr Bankimchandra Ramchandra Vyas Vs Reserve Bank of India

Girdharbhai Panchabhai Abhangi(Patel) Vs District Magistrate and District Collector

Shri Parshwa Concorp LLP. Vs Gujarat State Co-Operative Tribunal