Heard Mr.N.D.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Mrugen K. Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by him that the petitioners (four in number), who are residing in separate flats, have received a communication dated 13.03.2012, on 14.03.2012 calling upon them to remove the construction that has purportedly been made beyond the sanctioned plan, within a period of seven days. It is submitted that the petitioners gave an application to the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 15.02.2012, seeking further time of two months. However, on 14.03.2012 a notice under Section-260 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, was issued intimating them that their explanation dated 15.02.2012 had not been accepted and the construction was to be removed within three days of receipt of the notice. The petitioners, thereafter, have given another application dated 28.02.2012 seeking further time, as the construction is very old and they would like to consult an Architect, in case the said construction is to be removed.
The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have never given any explanation on 15.02.2012 and have only sought time for a period of two months, but the said application has wrongly been treated as an explanation, that has purportedly been rejected by the respondent- Corporation, without application of mind. It is further contended that pursuant to a notice published in the vernacular daily newspaper 'Divya Bhaskar' by the respondent - Municipal Corporation under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011 ("the Act", for short), the petitioners intend to make an application for regularization of the said construction, as Building Use Permission has been granted to the petitioners in the month of April, 2008, and the petitioners would fall within the purview of the Act.
Issue Notice returnable on 17.04.2012.
By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that the respondent-Corporation is restrained from demolishing the construction of the petitioners, pursuant to the impugned notice dated 14.03.2012, till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service, today, is also permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) ~gaurav~ Top