Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2013
  6. /
  7. January

Ajitsinh Bhupatsinh Parmar vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary &

High Court Of Gujarat|27 September, 2013
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. At the outset with regard to the subject petition and prayers, Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to order dated 22.9.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11417 of 2010 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri) and order dated 9.8.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17209 of 2011 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya) and submits that the petitioner deserves hearing and thereafter action at the end of respondents both in accordance with law.
2.1. For the sake of convenience both the above orders are reproduced herein below.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the action of the respondent-authorities in making deduction from the land of the petitioner situated at Revenue Survey No.649/1, village Gotri, District Vadodara, having original Plot No.105, admeasuring 4553 sq.mtrs. while allotting final plot with respect to Town Planning Scheme No.61 (Gotri), Vadodara.
2. During the course of hearing, Mr.P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has restricted the reliefs prayed for in the petition to the effect that the respondent-authority may be directed to consider and decide the objections dated 29th April 2010 raised by the petitioner produced with the petition at Annexure-I within the stipulated time.
3. In view of aforesaid, the respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider and decide the objections dated 29th April 2010 raised by the petitioner herein produced with the petition at Annexure-I within a period of six months from today in accordance with law. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Mr. S.P.Majmudar, learned Advocate for the petitioner does not press this petition in view of the fact that during the pendency of this petition the Town Planning Officer has issued Notice dated 9.5.2012 against which the petitioner has already filed objection and evidence dated 19.5.2012. Copy of the same is taken on record. In view of the fact that the Town Planning Officer is to hear the petitioner in accordance with law, the petitioner does not press this petition. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits as the petition is not pressed. Notice discharged. No costs.
3. In answer to notice, learned AGP has produced on record a communication dated 26.9.2013 addressed by Town Planning Officer, Town Planning Scheme No.1, Vadodara whereby it is decided to hear the petitioner and if necessary to issue notice and follow the procedure in accordance with law. The above communication is ordered to be taken on record dated 26.9.2013.
4. In view of the above communication, respondent-Town Planning Officer who is present in the Court and/or is successor are directed to hear the petitioner and take action in accordance with law keeping in mind the orders dated 22.9.2010 and 9.8.2012 passed by this Court and the communication dated 26.9.2013.
5. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SMITA Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.