Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/489/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 489 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2121 of 2011
=========================================================
RAJUBHAI
BHAGIRATH VERMA - Appellant(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AS ASTHAVADI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 21/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
appeal has been preferred by the petitioner – appellant against
order dated 22nd February, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby and whereunder the writ petition preferred by the petitioner
has been dismissed.
2. The
aforesaid writ petition was preferred for a direction on respondent
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to implement Town Planning Scheme No.
54 (South Isanpur) qua the petitioner’s land.
3. Petitioner
claimed that he purchased some portion of the land bearing Sruvey No.
533 paiki (part) from the original owner i.e. Maniben Becharbhai, and
is in possession of the same. The land was subjected to Town
Planning Scheme No. 54 (South Isanpur) and under final Town Planning
Scheme, the original owner of the land bearing Survey No. 533 paiki
(part) were given O.P No. 46/1 and 462 admeasuring 18,919 sq.meters
of land and Final Plot No. 48 and 71 totally admeasuring 14,231
sq.meters of land.
4. Learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the land in question
being purchased from the original land owner, independent final plot
would have been allotted in favour of the petitioner.
5. Learned
Single Judge found that petitioner purchased the land from the
original owner after Town Planning Scheme No. 54 (South Isanpur) was
finalised and in view of the provisions, original owner has been
provided with alternative land. In this background, as already such
plot has been allotted to the original owner, petitioner cannot
derive any advantage of the subsequent sale. There being no merit,
the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)
(J.B.
Pardiwala, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top