Bhumikaben Pareshbhai Bhavsar vs State Of Gujarat

Rajendra M. Sareen, J

[1] The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following main reliefs:

“9(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notices dated

â€" 19.12.2019 and 19.02.2020 at ÄNNEXURE-A†issued under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 r/w

Rule No.33 in the interest of justice;

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVELY

be pleased to direct the respondents herein, to consider the objection/representations given by the petitioners dated 20.12.2019 and 13/07/2020

ÄNNEXURE-Câ€​ at in the interest of justice;

(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the request and allotment of alternative accommodation to the

petitioners in the interest of justice:â€​

[2] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

[3] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners own separate shops and house in Karnavati Shopping Centre which

falls within the Vatva area situation at District Ahmedabad bearing Survey Nos. 793+794+790+791+784 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the

property in questionâ€​).

[4] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that TPO published scheme drawn by him in Form-I on 27.05.2019 wherein

the property in question shown as O.P. Nos.23/1 and 23/2 and the same has been given F.P.No.27/1.

[5] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 65(1) of the

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (“the Act†for short) has sanctioned Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.89

(Vatva-I) w.e.f. 27.05.2019.

[6] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent No.3 issued notices dated 19.12.2019 under Section 68 of

the Act read with r/w Rule 33 calling upon the petitioners to handover the possession of the respective shops, which is in their possession, after

coming into force the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.89 (Vatva-I), as the petitioners are not entitled to occupy the same.

[7] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that pursuant to the notices dated 19.12.2019, the petitioners filed their joint

detailed objections on 20.12.2019, which are till date not considered by the respondent authority and without considering the objections of the

petitioners, the impugned orders of evictions are passed.

[8] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners were again sent notices dated 19.02.2020 calling upon the

petitioners to remain personally present on 26.02.2020 for personal hearing and accordingly, petitioners appeared in person on 26.02.2020 and their

objections in form of statements were recorded by the authority, which were duly signed by the petitioners.

[9] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that thereafter on 10.07.2020, without considering the objections and without

passing eviction order, the authority threatened petitioners to demolish the premises.

[10] Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners has further submitted that if this Hon’ble Court grants the alternative relief and directs the

respondent authority to consider objections / representations dated 20.12.2019 and 13.07.2020 (Annexure-C Colly), the petitioners do not press other

reliefs at this stage.

[11] Mr.Deep Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 â€" Authority has submitted that notice under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33

of the Rules have been issued by the authority and therefore, no interference may be made.

[12] Having heard Mr.Sevak, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Deep Vyas, learned advocate for respondent No.3 and Mr.Bharat Vyas,

learned AGP for respondent No.1 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the respondent authority

is directed to consider the objections / representations dated 20.12.2019 and 13.07.2020 (Annexure-C Colly) of the petitioners, the ends of justice

would be served and hence the following order:

The concerned respondent â€" authority is hereby directed to consider the objections / representations dated 20.12.2019 and 13.07.2020 (Annexure-C

Colly) of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law.

Learned advocate for the petitioners to send copy of this order to the concerned respondent authority by e-mail.

The petitioners are directed to cooperate the concerned respondent authority in disposal of the objections within stipulated time, as aforesaid.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

With the above observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of.