[1] This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers:
[a] this Hon ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
[b] this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and / or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26/7/2011, annexure QQ to the petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the N.A. Use permission granted to the use of lands of the ownership and possession of the petitioner society dated 04/07/1981;
[c] this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and / or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10/02/2012, Annexure UU to the petition as being de hors the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976;
[d] this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.10.2011, Annexure TT to the petition as being de hors the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to vary the revised development plan pertaining to the lands of the ownership and possession of the petitioner society under Section 19 thereof so as to change the same from `agriculture zone to `residential zone ;
[e] Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pertaining to the lands of the ownership and possession of the petitioner society;
[f] Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present p[petition, this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, staying and suspending the order dated 26/07/2011, rejecting the application for the extension of the N.A. use permission.
[g] Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of Paras E and F above may kindly be granted and confirmed after hearing the respondents;
[h] Be pleased to pass any such further other reliefs that in the facts and circumstances, may be deemed fit in the interests of justice.
[2] The grievance of the petitioners is that the application for variation of the development plan dated 11.2.2010, preferred by the petitioners has not been decided on the ground that the revised development plan is under consideration. The petitioners are further aggrieved because the extension / grant of the Non Agriculture use permission is not granted because the land falls in the `Agriculture Zone for which the variation is made.
[3] Mr.
S.M. Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioners, states that the interest of justice would be met, if respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 11.2.2010, for variation of the development plan, in accordance with law and within a stipulated time limit. It is further stated that the Collector (respondent No.3) may also be directed to decide the application of the petitioners dated 16.2.2011 independently of the order dated 26.7.2011, passed by the Collector within in a stipulated time.
[4] Ms.
Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, upon instructions of Mr. M.D. Moriya, Additional Collector, Gandhinagar, submits that the Collector shall decide the application dated 16.2.2011, within a stipulated time limit.
[5] Upon the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, the following order is passed.
Respondent No.2, Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, shall consider and decide the representation dated 11.2.2012 made by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Similarly, the Collector (respondent No.3) shall decide the application dated 16.2.2011 made by the petitioners independently of the order dated 26.7.2011 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
[6] The petition is disposed of in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
[7] Direct service of this order is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) (Vatsal) Page 5 of 5