1. Heard Mr. Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned AGP for the respondent.
2. Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner states that the prayers prayed for originally in the present petition does not survive. Only prayer 20(aa) is pressed.
3. Mr. Kapadia submitted that in fact during pendency of the petition, the petitioner Corporation has already disposed of the land in question being city survey No.4448 to 4456 of Mehsana town.
4. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned AGP, on instructions, states that the petitioner has not taken any revised N.A. and has in fact carried out unauthorised construction over the land in question.
5. Mr. Kapadia, however, submitted that the in view of the fact that Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 has come into force, the petitioner would prefer to file an application as contemplated under the said Act. Mr. Kapadia further submitted that the petitioner shall also file proper application for conversion of the land for the use of nonagricultural purpose i.e. for commercial purpose. Mr. Kapadia, therefore, submitted that as such the petition does not survive.
6. It is, however, made clear that if any such application is made, as aforesaid, the competent authorities under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 as well as under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, while dealing with the application, if any, filed by the petitioner shall consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by the aforesaid order. It is, however, made clear that no direction is issued by this Court. It is also made clear that this Court has not opined on merits of the impugned communication dated 5.1.1998 (AnnexureL to the petition).
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya