1. RULE. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2– Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.
2. Considering the issue involved in the present petition and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, does not press prayer 7(B) and hence, the petition stands dismissed as far as prayer 7(B) is concerned.
4. It is the case of the petitioner society that they are owners and occupiers of land bearing survey No.370 of Mouje Chandkheda, District Gandhinagar admeasuring 7284 sq. mtrs. It transpires from the record that after purchase of the land in question, the Collector, Gandhinagar by order dated 10.5.2006 permitted the petitioner society to make NonAgricultural use i.e. for commercialcumresidential purpose. As can be seen from the record of the petition that the petitioner society applied for development permission with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 granted development permission–Rajachitthi on 21.7.2007. It is the say of the petitioner that the land in question is now forming part of Town Planning Scheme No.69 and as per the development permission granted by respondent No.2, the petitioner has constructed upon the land in question.
5. As aforesaid, Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner now press only for prayers 7(A) and 7(C). Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2 submitted that the application for Building Use Permission along with the representations filed by the petitioners dated 31.1.2011 and 8.7.2011 shall be decided in accordance with law within reasonable time. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned AGP reiterates the stand taken by Mr. Nikhilesh J. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
6. Considering the above, respondent No.2 i.e. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority is hereby directed to decide the application for Building Use Permission filed by the petitioner society along with the representations dated 31.1.2011 and 8.7.2011 latest by 31.8.2012. It is, however, made clear that respondent No.2 shall scrutinize the said application for Building Use Permission pending before it and if any discrepancy is found, it will call upon the petitioner society to rectify/comply with the requisitions in accordance with the general development and regulations applicable to respondent No.2 before deciding the application as well as the representations, as directed above.
7. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute only to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya