Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2287/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2287 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9874 of 2010
To
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2319 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9924 of 2010
=========================================
KISHORE
P TRASADIYA - Applicant(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MS BHAVINI
C SHUKLA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RM CHHAYA for Opponent(s) : 1 -
5
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 30/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. All
these Miscellaneous Civil Applications have been preferred by the
respective applicants-original petitioners for recall/modification of
the order dated 23/08/2010 relying upon some subsequent communication
dated 13/08/2010 issued by the Deputy Estate Officer (West Zone),
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by which some other persons are
issued notices and are called upon to remove the deficiencies with
respect to their applications for regularisation of illegal
construction. It is submitted that Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
and their Officers have even accepted the impact fees till yesterday
i.e. 29/08/2010. It is submitted that when the Corporation has
extended the time to remove the deficiencies with respect to the
applications for regularisation of the unauthorised construction and
time to pay the impact fees is extended, similar treatment should be
given to the petitioners also, who have as such agreed to demolish
the illegal construction, which is already removed now.
2. On
an advance copy being served, Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior
advocate has appeared with Shri R.M. Chhaya, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the opponent-Corporation and an
affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the opponents, affirmed by
one Shri Utpal C. Padia, Deputy Municipal Commissioner in charge of
Urban Development Department in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation .
In paragraph 3 it is stated as under;
“I
say the communication dated 03/08/2010 issued by the Corporation
Annexure – B to the application has been examined by the
Corporation and taking into consideration the provisions of GRUDA the
same could not have been issued thereunder and hence no further
actions have been taken by the Corporation. It is decided that the
Corporation shall not take any further action/s in lieu of any such
similar communication.”
3. Shri
S.N. Shelat, learned Senior advocate appearing with Shri R.M. Chhaya,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opponent-Corporation,
under instructions from Shri Rajeshbhai Patel, Deputy Town
Development Officer and Deputy Estate Officer (West Zone,) has made a
statement that no amount of impact fees has been accepted by the
Corporation so far as west zone is concerned and there is no question
of further processing the applications of regularisation of the
illegal/unauthorised construction by extending the time to remove the
deficiencies and/or extending the time to pay the impact fees. Shri
S.N. Shelat, learned Senior advocate appearing with Shri R.M. Chhaya,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opponent-Corporation has
further submitted at the bar that if the opponent-Corporation has
accepted any amount of impact fees with respect to other zones,
pursuant to the aforesaid communications, the same shall be returned
to the respective parties and as such no further actions are to be
taken pursuant to the aforesaid communications.
It is further submitted that as such, earlier some notices
were issued and/or it was published in the newspapers with respect to
extension of time to pay the impact fees and to remove the
deficiencies with respect to the applications for regularisation of
the illegal/unauthorised construction, however, the same are issued
inadvertently and/or there was no proper advice. It is stated at the
bar that all such earlier communications have been withdrawn and it
is made very much clear that no further actions are to be taken by
the Corporation with respect to such similar communications. It is
submitted that even otherwise the same is not permitted at all
considering the provisions of GRUDA. Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Senior
advocate appearing on behalf of the opponent-Corporation has stated
at the bar that appropriate authorities are appropriately advised
now. He has also stated at the bar that appropriate press
release/press note shall be given in the local newspaper clarifying
the aforesaid position at the earliest so that there is no further
confusion and/or illusion amongst such person, who have made
unauthorised/illegal construction. Opponents are directed to act as
stated hereinabove.
4. In
view of the above, Shri Nanavati, learned Senior advocate appearing
on behalf of the respective applicants does not press the present
applications. Accordingly, all these applications are dismissed as
not pressed.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top