Jay Tenament And Row House Owner Association vs Assistant Muncipal Commissioner (West Zone)

Biren Vaishnav, J

Mr. Arjunsingh Rathore, learned advocate for the petitioner-applicant seeks permission to withdraw the civil application filed for direction. Permission as prayed for is granted. Application is disposed of as having been withdrawn.

So far as the main matter is concerned, the petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the respondent Corporation.

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation has unilaterally taken a decision to regularize the construction made on the terrace of Geetanjali Shopping Centre by respondents no. 3 and 4 without there being any application under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act'). On hearing the counsels for the respective parties what is evident is that it is the case of the petitioner that though an order of status quo of disputed property has been granted in a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 1051 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid order has been passed.

It appears that Civil Application No. 10428 of 2017 is pending before this court arising out of proceedings in the civil suit. Reading of the impugned order would indicate that what the authority has done is directed that further process in context of the application for regularization be carried forward subject to the outcome of the civil application and the pending suit. It has been brought to the notice of the court by Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation that the Corporation in para 7 of the affidavit-in-reply has stated that under the provisions of the Act the last date for adjudication of the case which was extended from time to time was 31.03.2018 and therefore no consequential proceedings for passing the final order of regularization could be passed by the respondent authority and the order though passed has become unexecutable. Even otherwise it is submission that the parties to the proceedings can file appeal under section 12 of the Act. Mr. Rathore, learned advocate for the petitioner has reservations on the issue of filing appeal.

In view of the above discussion, keeping the contentions of the parties to file appeal, in the event they file an appeal, subject to the outcome of the civil suit, no orders are required to be passed in the present petition. Petition stands accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim relief if any shall stand vacated.