Disposed¶28

Mehmudmiya Abdulhamid Nagori v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC3 Jul 2025SCA/8646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Civil Application 8646 of 2025; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976; Section 68; Section 33; Section 65(1); Section 67-A; Town Planning Scheme No.38/1 Dani Limda-East; Final Plot No.18; Survey No.100/3; notice for peaceful and vacant possession; demarcation; 7/12 extract; Form-F; sale deed 24.10.2008; unregistered sale deed 04.01.1996; Committee under Section 67-A; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek a change in the revenue record and, if changed, to apply under Section 67-A of the Town Planning Act to the Committee for demarcation. ¶28

Mehmudmiya Abdulhamid Nagori Vs State of Gujarat — Gujarat HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice dated 13.12.2024 issued under Section 68 read with Section 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, demanding peaceful and vacant possession of the subject land within ten days, is bad in law. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's claim of ownership of the subject land rests only on the registered sale deed dated October 2008; the revenue record was not annexed to justify the petitioner's ownership.

¶27

Key takeaways

In these factual situations, it is open to the petitioner to make an application, in accordance with law, seeking change in the revenue record.ratio¶27
If any change is made in the revenue record on such application, it is open to the petitioner to make an application under Section 67-A of the Town Planning Act to the Committee constituted thereunder.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (Mauna M. Bhatt, J.), order dated 03/07/2025 in R/Special Civil Application No. 8646 of 2025 (Mehmudmiya Abdulhamid Nagori v. State of Gujarat & Anr.): petition challenging a notice dated 13.12.2024 issued under Section 68 read with Section 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, granting ten days to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of land in Town Planning Scheme No.38/1 (Dani Limda-East), sanctioned under Section 65(1) on 04.05.2022, wherein the petitioner was allotted Final Plot No.18 against original plot No.18 (Survey No.100/3) in joint ownership without demarcation. The Court found the petitioner's ownership claim rested only on a registered sale deed of October 2008, the revenue record not being annexed, and held it open to him to seek change in the revenue record and, if changed, to apply under Section 67-A of the Act to the Committee constituted thereunder. Petition disposed of.

¶1

C/SCA/8646/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8646 of 2025

¶4

========================================================== MEHMUDMIYA ABDULHAMID NAGORI

¶5

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

¶6

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

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

HARSHIT R PUROHIT(8385) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS SUMAN MOTLA, LD.ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

¶11

Date : 03/07/2025

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

This petition is filed challenging the Notice dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure “A” Page-8) issued under Section 68 read with 33 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, whereby the petitioner has been granted ten days’ time to give peaceful and vacant possession of the subject land, failing which, appropriate action has been indicated.

¶14

Learned advocate Mr.Harshit Purohit for the petitioner submitted that the Notice dated 13.12.2024 is bad in law. The petitioner is in ownership of survey No.100/3. Since Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.38/1 (Dani Limda- East)

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

C/SCA/8646/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

¶17

was sanctioned by the State Government on 04.05.2022, the petitioner has been allotted Final Plot No.18 against his original plot No.18 (Survey No.100/3). However, since the final plot allotted to the petitioner was in joint ownership without any demarcation in relation to petitioner’s land, he made representation to Town Development Inspector (Annexure “C” Page 38). Despite that, no action has been taken till date. So far as ownership of the petitioner in survey No.100/3 in original plot No.18 is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on sale deed dated 24.10.2008 along with unregistered sale deed dated 04.01.1996 (Annexure “B” Page-10). Therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent-corporation.

¶18

Opposing the present petition, learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk invited attention of this court to the sale deed, to submit that the said sale deed refers to joint ownership of original plot No.18. So far as Town Planning Officer is considered, he has to act as per the revenue record (7/12 extract) and the authority has acted by allotting final plot against original plot as per revenue record (7/12 extract). Moreover, Form-F does not contain the name of the petitioners since the revenue record (7/12 extract) does not show ownership of the petitioner for original plot No.18 (survey

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

C/SCA/8646/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

¶21

No.100/3). Therefore, question of any demarcation of petitioner’s land would not arise. However, if an application is to be made for demarcation, if the petitioner is owner of original plot No.18 (survey No.100/3), then the same is to be made to the Committee as constituted under section 67-A of the Town Planning Act.

¶22

Learned Assistant Government Pleader also supported the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the respondentcorporation. She submitted that till date; no application as referred under section 67-A of the Act has been filed by the petitioner.

¶23

Considered the submissions and the documents on record. It is noticed that grievance of the petitioner is in relation to non-allotment of demarcated plot, pursuant to finalization of Town Planning Scheme No.38/1 (Dani Limda- East). The said scheme was sanctioned under section 65(1) of the Act by the State Government vide its Notification dated 04.05.2022.

¶24

Pursuant to finalization of Town Planning Scheme by its Notification dated 04.05.2022, allotment of Final Plot against the original plot has been referred in the said Notice. However, it cannot be ignored that reliance placed by the

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

C/SCA/8646/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025

¶27

petitioner for his ownership is only registered sale deed in his favour dated October,2008 (Page-16). The revenue record is not annexed to justify the ownership of the petitioner on subject land. In these factual situations, it is open for the petitioner to make an application, in accordance with law, seeking change in revenue record. If any change is made on such application, it is open for the petitioner to make an application under section 67-A of the Town Planning Act to the committee, as referred therein.

¶28

With this, the present petition is disposed of.

¶29

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)

¶30

DIPTI PATEL...

¶31

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: DIPTIBEN PIYUSH PATEL(HC00191), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/07/2025 17:57:31

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Mehmudmiya Abdulhamid Nagori v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehmudmiya Abdulhamid Nagori v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehta Petrocem through Prop Nirmalkumar Jashvantraj Mehta Vs State of Gujarat

Official Liquidator of M/S Nissan Copper Ltd. (in Liquidation) Vs Na

Hemaben Arvindbhai Gadhvi Vs State of Gujarat

Manaji Punjaji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

Rossmere International Limited Vs Dv Dale Ex Name Mt Gamma Gamma II Mercury Imo No 8917792

Shabbir Ahmed Nasruddin Nagori Vs State of Gujarat