The learned advocate for the petitioner has moved a draft amendment. The same is granted and may be carried out, during the course of the day.
Heard Mr.P.H.Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned notice dated 01.02.2012 is bad in law, as no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question, as per the principles of law enunciated in Killol V. Shelat Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad and another reported in (2009) 1 GLH 13. It is further submitted that no specific details of the property have been mentioned in the impugned notice. That the property in question has been constructed legally 60 years ago and shops, temple and a School in the name of Shakti Vidyalaya, which is a Government recognized School, is being run on the said property. That students from K.G. to 7 Standards are studying there, as of date and the examinations are going on. If the property is demolished, it will adversely affect the studies of the children apart from being detrimental to the petitioner and the persons, who are occupying the shops owned by the petitioner.
Issue Notice returnable on 22.03.2012.
Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph-28(C), is granted till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) ~gaurav~ Top