Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Punambhai vs Nadiad

High Court Of Gujarat|21 June, 2012
By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the illegal, arbitrary and unlawful action of the respondents in taking the land of the petitioners and making development thereupon without authority of law and without following the required procedure established under the law.
(B) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to given compensation to the petitioners if their lands are required for public purpose.
(C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking forceful possession of the lands of the petitioners and from making any development thereupon or from taking any forceful or coercive action against the petitioner;
(D) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
In response to the notice issued by this Court, Mr.Mehul Sarad Shah, learned advocate appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and has also filed affidavit-in-reply of the Chief Officer, Nadiad Nagarpalika. As set out in Paragraph Nos.6 as well as 8 of the affidavit-in-reply, it transpires that the draft development plan is at the stage of Section 16 of the the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (the Act) i.e. the said draft development plan is submitted to the State Government for its final sanction as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. It goes without saying that unless and until sanction is accorded there cannot be question of implementing the said plan. Moreover, the Chief Officer in Paragraph No.6 has clearly stated that the present petition is filed only on presumption and false apprehension and has further stated on oath that Area Development Authority, Nadiad has followed all the procedure as envisaged under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and the possession of the land, which is going to be acquired under the revised development plan, will be taken after following the due procedure and either after payment of compensation or in lieu of any other alternative land.
In view of the aforesaid statement and as per the provisions of the Act, the petition is premature. The aforesaid statement made on oath clearly indicates that Area Development Authority, Nadiad will implement the revised development plan after its sanction and after following the due process of law, more particularly as provided under section 20(1) of the Act.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. NOTICE discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh* Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Punambhai vs Nadiad

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgementDate
21 June, 2012