Disposed

Bharatkumar Ratilal Modi v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC30 Mar 2021SCA/1028/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat directed respondent authorities to decide the petitioners' representation regarding property acquisition within six weeks without adjudging merits. The petition was subsequently disposed of as not pressed after the order was served.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to decide the petitioners' representation within six weeks; petition disposed as not pressed.

Bharatkumar Ratilal Modi Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/SCA/1028/2021 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1028 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

BHARATKUMAR RATILAL MODI

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

JAYDEEP P PATEL(9201) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 NAMAN H KINKHABWALA(8831) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6

¶11

MS NIDHI VYAS, AGP (99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

¶14

Date : 30/03/2021

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

Heard Mr. Naman H. Kinkhabwala, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondent no.1-State authority through video conference.

¶17

By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

¶18

“8(A) Be pleased to admit/allow this Petition;

¶19

8(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the illegal, arbitrary and unjust action of respondent authorities of initiating procedure of acquisition of property owned/occupied/possessed by the petitioners as the same is in violation of provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

¶20

8(C) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to follow the procedure of law as laid down in The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, specifically under section 20 of The Act for acquisition of the land owned/occupied/possessed by the petitioner;

¶21

8(D) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

C/SCA/1028/2021 ORDER

¶24

pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 28/12/2020 preferred by the petitioners at the earliest preferably within a week from passing of the order by this Hon'ble Court

¶25

8(E) Be pleased to grant interim relief and by way of interim relief order be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from demolishing the subject matter property situated between Surat-Kadodara falling part of Development Plan-2035 for broadening of road qua the land/property of the petitioners, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition;

¶26

8(F) Be pleased to grant interim relief and by way of interim order be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 28/12/2020 preferred by the petitioners at the earliest and till the representation of the petitioners is decided by pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from demolishing the subject matter property situated between Surat-Kadodara falling part of Development Plan-2035 for broadening of road qua the land/property of the petitioners.

¶27

8(G) Be pleased to pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

¶28

At the outset, Mr. Kinkhabwala, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already ventilated their grievance by making representation dated 28/12/2020 to the respondent authorities and at this stage, grievance of the petitioners would stand redressed, if this Court, without entering into the merits of the matter, direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 28/12/2020 within some time bound schedule. Mr.Kinkhabwala, learned advocate submits that, in case, if this Court directs respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation dated 28/12/2020 made by the petitioners, in that case, he would not press this petition.

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nidhi Vyas for the respondent no.1-State submits that considering the nature of the petition and relief sought for by the petitioners, appropriate authority to decide the representation made by the petitioners, would be the respondent nos.3 to 6 and she

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

C/SCA/1028/2021 ORDER

¶32

submits that, accordingly, at this juncture, no directions are required to be issued to the State authorities.

¶33

In view of aforesaid, respondent nos.3 to 6 are directed to decide the representation dated 28/12/2020 preferred by the petitioners which is produced at Annexure-D, Page No.31 of the petition, within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court.

¶34

However, the respondents to consider and accept request of the petitioners with regard to the time limit given by this Court to decide the representation considering the difficulty faced by the petitioners.

¶35

It is made clear that, this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. The respondent authorities are directed to decide the representation dated 28/12/2020 strictly in accordance with law.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid order, learned advocate Mr.Kinkhabwala does not press this petition, at this stage.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, as not pressed.

¶38

Direct service through email as well as normal mode of service is permitted.

¶39

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

¶40

ila

¶41

Page 3 of 3

Bharatkumar Ratilal Modi v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatkumar Ratilal Modi v. State of Gujarat

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

Maheshbhai Popatbhai Bharodiya Vs Surat Municipal Corporation

Amrutbhai Shivabhai Darji Vs State of Gujarat

Kamleshbhai Revabhai Solanki Vs District Development Officer

Ramubhai Bhikhabhai Solanki Vs State of Gujarat

Thakor Sandipkumar Ratansinh Vs State of Gujarat

Gopalbhai Mangalbhai @ Dhulabhai Talpada Vs State of Gujarat