1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 10.02.2010 and further to direct the respondent authority to consider the application of variation filed by the petitioners.
2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of the land bearing Block No. 476 part admeasuring 26,669 sq.mtrs (original plot no. 98/2-3). The Chief Executive Officer of respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 07.06.2008 intimated the petitioner about the final sanction of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and informed the petitioner that the meeting for the implementation of the said scheme with respect to said area is convened on 19.08.2008. The petitioner vide letter dated 17.06.2008 replied to the said communication and requested the respondent authority to furnish the details of the scheme. The petitioner had also preferred an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking details with regard to Town Planning Scheme. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authority vide letter dated 09.07.2008 informed the petitioner that the information which is pertaining to his office in point no.3, the petitioner shall give a detailed application. Being aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondent authority, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 11742/2008 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 09.03.2009 disposed of the said petition with a direction to the petitioner to make appropriate representation under Section 70 of the Act for variation of the scheme to the State Government. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a application/representation to the State Government for variation of the scheme. The respondent authority vide communication/order dated 10.02.1010 rejected the said application. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr.
Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of law, once the preliminary scheme is sanctioned under Section 63 of the Act, the only option available with the aggrieved party is to avail the proceedings of Section 70 or 71 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and the authority has the power to vary the final scheme.
4. Mr.
Dave, learned AGP has submitted that there is no question of variation as the scheme is already sanctioned in the year 1996 and it is not in the public interest to make variation under Section 70 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act ["the Act" for short].
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The Chief Town Planner of respondent no. 3 prepared the Draft Town Planning Scheme, Bill No. 1 on 02.09.1989 u/s. 41 of the Act and after following due procedure laid down under the said Act, the said scheme was submitted to the State Government for sanction. The State Government on 19.03.1990 sanctioned the said scheme u/s. 46(2) of the Act and as per the proposal of the said scheme the petitioner was allotted final plot no. 107 in lieu of its original plot no. 98 (original block no. 476). Pursuant thereto, the Town Planning Officer after following the prescribed procedure prepared preliminary scheme. On 11.03.1996, the State Government sanctioned the preliminary scheme and the petitioner was allotted final plot no. 95 in lieu of its original plot no. 98/2+3 (original block no. 476P). Thereafter, the petitioner u/s. 70 of the Act of the preferred an application before the State Government for variation in the scheme as it affects the property of the petitioner. The said application was rejected on the ground that the Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned much earlier in 1996 and therefore, in the public interest and therefore, variation u/s. 70 of the Act is not possible. Looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that the said scheme was sanctioned much earlier in the year 1996, the respondent authority has not committed any illegality or impropriety while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the authority in the impugned communication/order and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top