1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, with the following prayers :
"(a) To admit this petition and to allow the same;
(b) To direct the respondent authorities not to widen the road of 45 meters on one side of the road leading towards the construction of the premises of the petitioner and others of Rajiv Nagar Society, but to widen the road by dividing the same equally on both the sides of the road, so that the premises of the petitioner and others can be saved;
(c) Direct the respondent to decide the petitioners' representation dated 28-2-2012 and 1-3-2012 considering the fact that the petitioner is staying in his house since many years onwards and considering the fact that opposite to Rajiv Nagar Society, right along with side of the Cinema Talkies there is wide open space which is available for widening the road after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by following due procedure of law;
(d) PENDING THE ADMISSION, HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to restrain the respondent or his agent from carrying out any work of widening the road which passes through the premises of the petitioner situated at Rajiv Nagar Society land bearing Survey No.173/1, Vadod, District Surat;
(e) Alternatively be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to give the petitioner suitable place if his residential premises be removed which is situated in the Rajiv Nasgar Society for the purpose of widening the road;
(f) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the Draft Town Planning Scheme No.63 (Vadod), the road is proposed to be widened in a manner that will result in demolition of the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, the road can be widened on both the sides, as per the original plan, which would save the property of the petitioner. However, it is being widened only on one side, resulting in proposed demolition of the petitioner's construction. The petitioner has made representations to the concerned authorities on 28.02.2012 and 01.03.2012, which have not been responded to.
3. Mr.P.M.Lakhani, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would be met, if the Town Planning Officer, Surat Municipal Corporation, is directed to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner, within a stipulated period of time.
4. Upon the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the following order is passed :
The Town Planning Officer, Surat Municipal Corporation (respondent No.5), shall consider and decide the representations dated 28.02.2012 and 01.03.2012 made by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
Direct Service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) ~gaurav~ Top