This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 21.02.2012 issued by the respondent no.3, Annexure-A to this petition;
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Sanctioned Draft Town Planning Scheme qua the land of the Petitioners as the same being irrational.
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant stay against any further action pursuant to the impugned notice dated 21.02.2012 issued by the respondent no.3, Annexure-A to this petition, and its effect and implementation be stayed;
(E) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (D) above may kindly be granted and the same be confirmed after hearing the parties, in the interest of justice.
(F) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require."
The petitioner No.1 is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner No.2 is its Chairman and Managing Director. Petitioner No.2 is the owner of land bearing Survey No.256 and Original Plot No.13 of Naroda. A Draft Town Planning Scheme No.97 (Naroda North) has been sanctioned by the State Government on 30.08.2006. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 has been asked to remove the superstructure and to hand over the possession of land as per impugned Notice dated 21.02.2012, issued by the Estate Officer of the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, as the Corporation intends to widen the existing 12 meter road and convert it into an 18 meter wide road.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-Corporation has issued the impugned Notice to take away 13 meters of land from the petitioners whereas only 3 meter is required for the 18 meter road.
Another grievance is that the respondent-Corporation is widening the road only on one side by taking away the land of the petitioners and others, whereas the land on the opposite site which has been marked as a commercial plot and is lying vacant, has not been touched.
It is the specific case of the petitioners that no Notice under Rule 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, was ever issued to the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 is running the factory on the land in question since the year 1971. and the addresses of the petitioners are in the knowledge of the respondent-Corporation. However, neither has the petitioners been issued notice for the meeting of owners under Rule 17 and nor have they been granted an opportunity of hearing, at any stage, and by way of the impugned notice, the petitioners have been called upon to remain present for hearing on 29.02.2012 at 3:00 p.m. It is stated by the learned advocate for the petitioners that two days ago, the officers of the respondent-Corporation have visited the premises of the petitioners and threatened demolition and have attempted demolition. Hence the petition.
Mr.D.K.Puj, learned advocate for the petitioners, submits that Final Plot No.74 is reserved for commercial purposes. The proposed 18 meter T.P.Road can be constructed by utilising land of Final Plot No.74, which is part and parcel of Original Plot No.35 for a number of years, as the said land is vacant and is not being used for any purpose.
It is further submitted that the petitioner No.2 is running a factory for the last about 40 years. There are 80 to 100 persons working in the factory at present. If the road is widened by taking away 13 meters of land of the petitioner, as proposed by the respondent-Corporation, it would adversely affect the factory of the petitioner.
It is further contended that the respondent-Corporation is not widening the 12 meter road from the center of the road land but the widening is taking place only on one side by taking away the land of the petitioner and others and leaving the land on the opposite side untouched.
It is contended that had notice been issued to the petitioners under Rule 17 and had the petitioners been granted an opportunity of hearing, all these aspects could have been pointed out to the respondent-Corporation.
Lastly, it is submitted that if an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner in order to highlight these aspects and the petitioner is protected in the meanwhile, it would serve the ends of justice.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, the following order is passed:
The Assistant Estate Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioners by granting an opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner No.2. The points raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition, as enumerated hereinabove, as well as the representation stated to have been made by the petitioners on 27.02.2012, shall be considered and a decision, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order shall be made.
Till such time as the decision is taken, status-quo, as it exists today, qua the land of the petitioners, shall be maintained.
In case the decision is adverse to the petitioners, status-quo shall be maintained for a further period of seven days after its communication to the petitioners.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
Direct Service of this order, today, is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top