1. Whether the decision of respondent no.2-authority to allot approximately 12,527 sq. metres of land, out of the land bearing Final Plot No.27 situated at mouje Tandalja, Taluka & District Vadodara, owned by the petitioner herein, in favour of respondent no.4, by way of Notification dated 13.04.2010 issued by respondent no.1, whereby, variations in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.24 for redistribution of Final Plot No.27 had been sanctioned in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.22819/2005 is just and legal, is the core issue that has come up for consideration of this Court in this petition.
2. Before proceeding with the matter, the Court would like to record that looking to the facts of the case and the reliefs claimed in the present petition, it was pointed out to learned Sr. Counsel Mr. K.S. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appropriate application under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that he would like to proceed with the present matter rather than filing a separate petition under the provisions of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Hence, the matter is heard on merits.
3. The facts in a nutshell are as under;
Respondent no.4 herein owned and possessed certain lands situated at mouje Tandalja, Taluka & District Vadodara. Out of the said lands, lands bearing Survey Nos.125, 126, 129/2 and 135 were agricultural lands, whereas, the lands bearing Survey Nos.124/1, 124/2 & 127 were non-agricultural lands. On 07.08.1970 respondent no.4 executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Nima Private Ltd. in respect of the non-agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 124/1, 124/2 & 127, admeasuring 58,882 sq. metres. Pursuant to the above transaction, said Nima Private Ltd.
was given actual physical possession of the lands, whereas, respondent no.4 remained in possession of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.125, 126, 129/2 and 135, admeasuring 15,681 sq. metres.
4. The petitioner herein is the successor-in-title of said Nima Private Ltd. and accordingly, held the lands in such capacity. Since requisite permission for non-agricultural use of the said lands had already been granted by the competent authorities, the petitioner constructed an industrial shed on the said lands.
5. Some where in the year 2000, respondent no.2 finalized a Town Planning Scheme of Tandalja. However, while doing so, the lands belonging to the petitioner and respondent no.4 herein came to be consolidated erroneously by considering Nima Private Ltd. and respondent no.4 as joint owners of a contiguous piece of land and thereby, deducted certain portion of land from the lands held by the petitioner and allotted one single final plot being Final Plot No.27, admeasuring 59,864 sq. metres, to the lands of the petitioner and respondent no.4.
6. The aforesaid allotment of joint Final Plot by respondent no.2-authority was challenged by respondent no.4 before this Court by way of filing S.C.A. No.22819/2005. The said petition came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 by issuing certain directions.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, it awaited response from the respondent-authorities for a personal hearing for almost three months. It also made several representations to the respondent-authorities. However, about 20 months thereafter, respondent no.1-authority published a Notification dated 30.01.2009 u/s.70(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short, "the said Act"), whereby, a draft of variation in the Town Planning Scheme No.24 of Vadodara was published insofar as Final Plot No.27 allotted to the petitioner and respondent no.4 was varied and thereby, allotted approximately 12,527 sq. metres of land to respondent no.4 out of the land held by the petitioner.
8. The said Notification also required the persons affected by the proposed variation to submit their objections to the concerned authority within one month from the date of publication of the same. Pursuant to the publication of the said Notification, Public Notice was also published in two daily newspapers on 12.02.2009 by the authority concerned and it was also displayed at several important places. The same was also affixed near the main gate of the petitioner-Company, as per the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.3-Corporation.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that it was not aware about the publication of such Notification and / or Public Notice issued by the authority concerned and therefore, it could not file its objections at the relevant time. As no objections were received, respondent no.1-authority published the impugned Notification dated 13.04.2010, whereby, the variation in Final Plot No.27 of Town Planning Scheme No.24 had been finalized, resulting into allotment of land admeasuring approximately 12,527 sq. metres and belonging to the petitioner in favour of respondent no.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10.0 Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company, submitted that the respondent-authorities have shown no justifiable reasons for not complying with the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 27.04.2007 passed in S.C.A. No.22819/2005. He submitted that the petitioner-Company was not given any opportunity of being heard before publication of the impugned Notification dated 30.01.2009 by which the Final Plot No.27 had been varied.
10.1 Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that the respondent-authorities have committed violation of the provisions of Section 45 of the said Act, which deals with re-constitution of Plot in the draft Town Planning Scheme, inasmuch as no consent of the owners of the lands were obtained before allotting a common Final Plot number. The authorities concerned have also not considered the registered sale deed executed by respondent no.4 for certain Plots in favour of the erstwhile Company - Nima Private Ltd., which are presently owned and occupied by the petitioner. He submitted that had the said fact been taken into consideration, the error of allotting a common Final Plot number to separate parties in the Town Planning Scheme finalized in the year 2000 would not have arisen.
10.2 Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the respondent-authorities have also not followed the guidelines issued by the competent authority and also the Resolution dated 27.03.2008 passed by respondent no.3-Corporation with regard to finalization of Town Planning Scheme and deduction from the original plot for which N.A. permission has been granted. He submitted that though the guidelines have been adopted by the respondent-authorities, the same have not been followed while varying the Town Planning Scheme.
10.3 Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Nanavati submitted that the respondent-authorities have also made discriminatory deduction while preparing the Town Planning Scheme. He submitted that without any justification, excess land has been deducted from the land owned by the petitioner. He has, therefore, submitted that appropriate directions deserve to be issued to the respondent-authorities to calculate / finalize the deductions from the land of the petitioner in accordance with the Resolution dated 27.03.2008 passed by Vadodara Municipal Corporation.
11. Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submitted that the authority concerned has duly complied with the directions issued by this Court in its order 27.04.2007 passed in S.C.A. No.22819/2005. He submitted that respondent no.2-authority had taken into consideration all the representations / grievances raised by the parties concerned, viz. the petitioner, respondent no.4 herein & Nima Private Ltd. and had, thereafter, submitted its opinion to the Municipal Corporation for variation of the Scheme, vide its communication dated 26.09.2007. He, therefore, submitted that respondent no.2-authority had complied with the directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3-Corporation submitted that the preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.24 (Tandalja) was approved by the State Government vide its Notification dated 16.08.2000. He submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 27.04.2007 passed in S.C.A. No.22819/2005, respondent no.2-authority prepared the proposal of variation and sent it to respondent no.3-Corporation, which was accepted by passing Resolution dated 27.03.2008. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 30.01.2009, suggestions and objections were invited from the affected persons and the same was also published in two local newspapers, viz. Divya Bhaskar and Sandesh on 12.02.2009. The particulars were also displayed at public places and near the main gate of the petitioner-Company.
12.1 Learned counsel submitted that since no objections were received, a communication in that regard was sent to the State Government, which, ultimately, published the Notification dated 13.04.2010 sanctioning the variation in the preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.24 in exercise of powers u/s. 70(2) of the said Act. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in this petition and the petition may be dismissed.
13. Mr. A. J. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, submitted that the action of the respondent-authorities was a consequence of the mistake committed by the concerned Town Planning Officer at an earlier point of time. He submitted that at the relevant time, the Town Planning Officer, by mistake, had clubbed the interest of two persons in Final Plot No.27, which was jointly allotted to two persons and therefore, it was required to be separated in the context of the holdings of both the parties.
13.1 Learned counsel Mr. Patel submitted that the variation effected by the respondent-authority, so as to rectify the said mistake, becomes a part of the Scheme, as per the provisions of Section 70(8) of the said Act and that in view of the provisions of Section 65(3) of the said Act, such variation has the effect of having been enacted under the Act. Therefore, the present petition is misconceived.
13.2 Learned counsel Mr. Patel further submitted that the petitioner has misquoted the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 27.04.2007 passed in S.C.A. No.22819/2005. He submitted that this Court had not issued any direction stating that the parties concerned should be given a "personal hearing". The Court had directed the authority concerned to give 'hearing' to the concerned parties, which was duly given. Therefore, the say of the petitioner is false and does not deserve to be entertained.
13.3 Learned counsel Mr. Patel submitted that deductions were made by the competent authority between 19 % to 20% from both the sides. When the deductions were earlier made in the year 2000, it was between 08% to 24%. The petitioner had purchased the property in question some where between 12.06.2001 to 19.06.2001, during which time, the deductions were already made. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the said controversy at this stage.
13.4 Learned counsel Mr. Patel further submitted that the predecessor-in-tile, i.e. Nima Private Ltd. had not taken any objection at the relevant point of time. He submitted that the State Government issued a preliminary Notification dated 30.01.2009. The Notification invited objections from the concerned parties within one month of issuance of Notification. It was published in the Government Gazette as well as in two local newspapers, having wide circulation. It was displayed at the Collector's office, Municipal Corporation and was also affixed at the main gate of the petitioner-Company. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that it was not aware about the issuance of the Notification is incorrect.
13.5 Learned counsel Mr. Patel has lastly submitted that by taking the impugned decision, the competent authority has made necessary deductions from the respective lands and has, thereafter, divided it amongst the co-owners. Therefore, it is not a 'deduction' but, a 'division' in the true sense. The said 'division' has been done so as to see that concerned land-owners get their respective shares in the original plots. Hence, the authorities were justified in making the said deductions. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the present petition does not deserve to be entertained and is required to be dismissed.
14. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
15. Looking to the facts of the case, a reference to the provision of Section 70 of the said Act would be apposite.
"Sec. 70 : Power to vary scheme on ground of error, irregularity or informality.
(1) If after the preliminary scheme or the final scheme has come into force, the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective on account of an error, irregularity or informality, the appropriate authority may apply in writing to the State Government for the variation of the scheme.
(2) If on receiving such application or otherwise, the State Government is satisfied that the variation required is not substantial, the State Government shall publish a draft on such variation in the prescribed manner.
(3) The draft variation published under sub-section (2) shall state every variation proposed to be made in the scheme and if any such variation relates to a matter specified in any of the clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (3) of section 40, the draft variation shall also contain such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(4) The draft variation shall be open to the inspection of the public at the head office of the appropriate authority during office hours.
(5) Within one month of the date of publication of the draft variation, any person affected thereby may communicate in writing his objections to such variation to the State Government through the Collector and send a copy thereof to the appropriate authority.
(6) After receiving the objections under sub-section (5), the State Government may, after consulting the appropriate authority and after making such inquiry as it may think fit, by notification;
(a) appoint a Town Planning Officer and thereupon the provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to such draft variation as if it were a draft scheme sanctioned by the State Government, or
(b) make the variation with or without modification, or
(c) refuse to make the variation.
(7) From the date of the notification making the variation, with or without modification, such variation shall take effect as if it were incorporated in the scheme."
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that if after the preliminary scheme or the final scheme has come into force, the appropriate authority considers that the scheme is defective, on account of an error, irregularity or informality, the appropriate authority may apply in writing to the State Government for variation of the scheme and after receiving such application, if the State Government is satisfied that the variation required is not substantial, the State Government shall publish a draft on such variation in the prescribed manner. It has been further provided that from the date of publication of the Notification making the variation, with or without modification, such variation shall take effect as if it were incorporated in the scheme.
17. In the present case, respondent no.3-Corporation declared its intention to prepare the Town Planning Scheme No.24 (Tandalja) under the General Board's Resolution No.136 dated 05.08.1994. Thereafter, it published a Draft Town Planning Scheme in respect of the area included in the said Town Planning Scheme No.24. After considering the objections and suggestions received from the concerned and interested parties, the respondent no.3-Corporation submitted the Draft Scheme to the State Government for sanction u/s.48(1) of the said Act.
18. The said Draft Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government with some modifications, vide its Notification dated 25.06.1996, u/s.48(2) of the said Act. After following due procedure, the competent authority declared its decision of the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme on 20.06.2000. Thereafter, it was submitted to the State Government for sanction and it was duly sanctioned by the State Government vide its Notification dated 16.08.2000.
19. Pursuant thereto, the concerned authority declared the decision of Final Town Planning Scheme on 04.09.2001 and also published it in the Government Gazette dated 05.09.2001.
20. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that when the aforesaid Notification was published, said Nima Private Ltd. was the owner of the land in question. The petitioner had purchased the said property some where between 12.06.2001 to 19.06.2001. However, by that time, necessary deductions, as per the prevailing standards, had already been effected, meaning thereby, that the petitioner had purchased the said property, when it was well within its knowledge that certain deductions had been effected.
21. In the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government on 16.08.2000, the lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos.125, 126, 127 (amalgamated nos.128, 130, 131, 129/1, 129/3, 133, 124/1 and 124/2), 129/2 and 135 were given original Plot No. 27 and subsequently, Final Plot No.27 admeasuring 59,864 sq. metres. The said allotment was made under a wrong belief that the lands were jointly owned by respondents no.4 herein and said Nima Private Ltd. Thus, instead of giving a separate Final Plot number for the two lands, a combined and joint Final Plot No.27 was given. No permission had been given by the two separate land owners, namely, respondent no.4 and Nima Private Ltd., to give a single Final Plot number to their lands. Both the owners have separate ownership upon separate survey nos. of lands.
22. In reality, said Nima Private Ltd. were the owners of the land bearing Survey Nos.129/1, 128, 129/3, 130, 131, 133, 127, 124/1 and 124/2, whereas, respondent no.4 is the owner of the rest of the survey nos., viz. survey nos.125, 126, 129 & 135. Therefore, two different Final Plot numbers ought to have been given for the lands owned by two different owners. Instead, a common Final Plot has been given, as aforesaid. Thus, the allotment was in violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the said Act.
23. When the anomaly came to the notice of one of the plot owners of Final Plot No.27, viz. respondent no.4 herein that by mistake the competent authority had clubbed the interest of two persons in the same Final Plot, which was jointly allotted to two individuals, a petition, being S.C.A. No.22819/2005, was preferred by respondent no.4 before this Court challenging the same. The said petition came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007, by issuing the following directions (only the relevant portion is reproduced);
"..........In view of these facts, the Town Planning Officer, Town Planning scheme no. 24, Tandalja, Vadodara is hereby directed to allot separate final plot numbers to Sarojiniben D. Amin as well as to Neema Pvt. Ltd. As stated hereinabove, Neema Pvt. Ltd. has already sold property owned by them to Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. admeasuring 58820 sq.mtrs. and therefore, separate final plot number is required to be given so that Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. can get consequential final plot numbers. The Town Planning Officer shall give hearing to Sarojiniben as well as to Neema Pvt. Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This exercise of allotment of separate final plot no. shall be completed as early as possible and practicable and preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court. Necessary documents shall be produced by the concerned parties before Town Planning Officer. The Town Planning Officer shall give two separate final plot numbers after verifying necessary documents from the concerned parties without being influenced by the order passed by this Court........."
23.1 A bare perusal of the above order of this Court makes one to believe that this Court had directed the authority concerned to hear the affected parties, including the petitioner herein, for the purpose of allotting separate Final Plot numbers. The said direction was issued on the ground that erroneously a common Final Plot number had been allotted in respect of lands belonging to two separate owners and in respect of which the Notification dated 16.08.2000 had already been published by the State Government. Therefore, to see that two different Final Plot numbers are given for the lands owned by two different owners, this Court had issued the above direction.
23.2 It was in the aforesaid background that this Court had directed the authority concerned to hear the affected parties, including the petitioner. No where in the said order, this Court had observed that an opportunity of "personal hearing" be given to the petitioner, as has been claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, it has to be said that the petitioner has misquoted and / or misread the order passed by this Court in S.C.A. No.22819/2005 so as to take certain benefits from the said order, which, otherwise, are non-existent.
24. Pursuant to the passing of the above order by this Court, the competent authority forwarded the proposal of variation to respondent no.3-Corporation. After the passing of necessary Resolution in that regard, respondent no.3-Corporation sent the preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.24, concerning Final Plot No.27, for variation u/s.70 of the said Act. As per the provisions of Section 70(2) of the said Act, suggestions and objections were invited from the affected persons. The same was also published in the local newspapers, viz. "Divya Bhaskar" and "Sandesh" on 12.02.2009. The particulars thereof were also displayed at public places, viz. the District Collector's Office, Municipal Corporation and also near the main gate of the petitioner-Company.
25. It transpires from the record that the petitioner had not submitted any objection/s, within the required time period. During the same time period, it also transpires that the Office of the District Collector had not received any objection in that regard for which the said Office had also addressed a communication dated 12.03.2009 to the State Government. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.3-Corporation, in Para-14, it has been specifically averred that the petitioner is not disputing the veracity of the documents / notice, as referred to herein above.
26. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner had not submitted any objection/s to the Notification dated 30.01.2009 published by the State Government, within the prescribed time period. Not only the public notice was issued, as required under the law but, the same was also affixed at all the relevant places. The petitioner cannot claim ignorance and all of a sudden wake up one morning and say that it was unaware about the publication of such Notification. The say of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities ought to have considered the representations/letters preferred by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court in S.C.A. No.22819/2005 and also the objections filed by it, does not deserve consideration since the objections were not filed within the time period, as prescribed in the impugned Notification. It is well settled that objections filed beyond the statutory period cannot be taken into consideration under any circumstances. Hence, the authorities concerned were completely justified in ignoring the objections filed by the petitioner. The publication of the Notification was necessitated so as rectify the anomaly that had crept in the Scheme of 2000 and also to avoid any other procedural delays. In my opinion, the procedure followed by the respondent-authorities, while acting upon the impugned Notification, is proper and legal.
27. When the action of the competent authority is found to be well within the four corners of law and when it is found that all the mandatory procedures have been duly followed before doing the act, then it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to plead ignorance. As is said, "Ignorance of law is no excuse". It was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that in the earlier litigation, i.e. S.C.A. No.22819/2005, wherein, the petitioner was joined as a party-respondent, this Court had issued necessary directions to the concerned authority to give separate Final Plot numbers to the lands belonging to different owners, as discussed herein above.
28. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the petitioner, respondent no.4 and said Nima Private Ltd. were heard by the authority concerned and thereafter, the authority concerned had prepared the proposal of variation and forwarded it to respondent no.3-Corporation, by its letter dated 26.09.2007. Therefore, the petitioner was very much aware that the process of giving separate Final Plot numbers to the lands in question was under the pipe-line.
29. The callousness on the part of the petitioner in filing objections to the Notification dated 30.01.2009 cannot be made good by presenting a picture of ignorance. Situation demanded that the petitioner acted promptly and filed its objections at the relevant time. However, nothing was done by the petitioner at that point of time. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take shelter under the umbrella of 'ignorance' so as to hide its fault or otherwise.
30. When no objections / suggestions were received as aforesaid, in pursuance of the Notification dated 30.01.2009, the State Government sanctioned the variation in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 24 in exercise of powers conferred u/s.70(2) of the said Act by impugned Notification dated 13.04.2010.
31. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the provision of Section 65 of the said Act, which reads as under;
"Sec.65 : Power of Government to sanction or refuse to sanction the scheme and effect of sanction.
(1) On receipt of the preliminary scheme or, as the case may be, the final scheme, the State Government may-
(a) in the case of a preliminary scheme, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt, and
(b) in the case of a final scheme, within a period of three months from the date of its receipt, by notification, sanction the preliminary scheme or the final scheme or refuse to give sanction, provided that in sanctioning any such scheme, the State Government may make such modifications as may, in its opinion, be necessary for the purpose of correcting an error, irregularity or informality.
(2) Where the State Government sanctions the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, it shall state in the notification-
(a) the place at which the scheme shall be kept open for inspection by the public, and
(b) a date in which all the liabilities created by the scheme shall come into force, Provident that the State Government may from time to time such date, by notification, by such period, not exceeding three months at a time, as it thinks fit.
(3) On and after the date fixed in such notification, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, as the case may be, shall have effect as it it were enacted in this Act."
[Emphasis Supplied] 31.1 It is clear from the above provision, more particularly from sub-section (3) therein, that from the date fixed in such Notification, published in exercise of powers conferred by Section 65 of the said Act, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, as the case may be, shall have effect as if it were enacted by the said Act. Thus, the power exercised by the authority under this provision has the effect of enactment by the Act itself. The said power exercised by the authority flows from the Act and when it has the effect of enactment by the Act itself, the petitioner has no authority to challenge the same.
32. Now, coming to the question of deduction of land, it is a matter of record that appropriate deductions were made by the authority concerned way back on 16.08.2000 while finalizing the Town Planning Scheme. At that time, deduction that was made by the competent authority was between 08% to 24%, as per the say of the petitioner itself. The deductions depend upon the nature of plot, the way the authority allots the plot u/s.45 of the said Act and the way development takes place. The petitioner had purchased the property in question between 12.06.2001 to 19.06.2001, during which time, deductions in respect of the land in question were already effected. With the knowledge of such deductions having been effected, the petitioner had purchased the property in question in the year 2001.
33. In the instant case, the deduction was between 19% to 20% from both the sides. By way of this petition, the petitioner is trying to resurrect something, which is already dead and buried. The petitioner was concerned only with the question of separation of interest between two parties, which has already been made justly, legally and appropriately, by the authority concerned. The authority concerned has rectified the mistake that was committed in the year 2000.
34. In view of the above discussion, the decision of the respondent-authorities to allot approximately 12,527 sq. metres of land, out of the land bearing Final Plot No.27, situated at mouje Tandalja, Taluka & District Vadodara, owned by the petitioner herein, in favour of respondent no.4, by way of Notification dated 13.04.2010, was only a correctional step in view of the fact that after the 2000 Notification, respondent no.4 remained the owner of only 982 sq. metres of land instead of 12,590 sq. metres of land. After the 2010 Notification, the said anomaly has been rectified, by allotting total 12,590 sq. metres of land in favour of respondent no.4. The division of Final Plots made in favour of the respective parties, after the deduction, is legal and proper. I find no illegality or irregularity having been committed by the authorities concerned while taking the impugned decision and hence, I find no reasons to interfere in this petition.
35. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] FURTHER ORDER After the order was pronounced, Mr. Bhavesh Choksi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, requests to extend the interim relief for some reasonable period. In my opinion, if interim relief as prayed for is granted, then it would amount to with-holding the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme of 2010, which has already become a part of the said Act. Hence, the request made by the learned counsel is not accepted.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top