Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16176/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16176 of 2010
=========================================================
ISUBBHAI
ISMAILBHAI SAIYED & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.MR MANAN MAHETA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MS
JIRGA JHAVERI, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 23/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Leave
to amend para 4.4 and 4.5. Learned advocate for the petitioners moves
draft amendment. The same is allowed.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Mehul Rathod for the petitioners. Learned
advocate invited attention of the Court to a resolution of Sihor
Nagar Palika dated 5.5.2001 and also invited attention of the Court
to permission granted on 7.5.2001.
2.1. Against
this, third party approached the Collector. The Collector rejected
his objections by order dated 19.8.2004. Being aggrieved of that,
third party approached the State Government by filing Revision
Application, which too came to be rejected by order dated 8.5.2009.
3. Learned
advocate for the petitioners states that the Collector while
rejecting the application filed by third party by order dated
19.8.2004, mentioned that instead of conversion charge levied by the
Municipality, it will be in fitness of things if 20% of the present
market price is charged by way of ‘conversion charges’ from the
petitioners with regard to Survey No.1820.
3.1. Learned
advocate for the petitioners states that after the said order of
rejecting the revision application by the State authorities on
8.5.2009, the petitioners submitted revised plan on 10.7.2009, in
which certain queries were raised which were replied/ satisfied by
the petitioners. But, Sihor Nagar Palika is not granting revised plan
of the petitioners for no valid reasons.
3.2. Learned
advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did
express his willingness to pay 20% of the market price about which,
it is conveyed to the petitioners by a communication dated 13.12.2010
by Junior Town Planner, Bhavnagar that Chapter is to be submitted by
competent authority. The learned advocate submitted that thus, the
petitioners are made to wait for no fault on their part.
4. RULE
and NOTICE
as to interim relief returnable on 7th
February 2011.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
omkar
Top