Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3970/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3970 of 2010
=========================================================
NITINKUMAR
DINESHCHANDRA SONI SHOP NO. 29,30 & 31 & 44 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VALSAD
MUNICIPALITY THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RR MARSHALL FOR MR ADIL R MIRZA
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 45.PETITION WITHDRAWN for Petitioner(s) :
3,
HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS MAITHILI MEHTA,
AGP for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 16/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioners
have challenged notice of eviction dated 16.3.2010 issued by
respondent No.1, Valsad Municipality. They also prayed for a
direction for quashing and setting aside the Town Planning Scheme
No.1 in so far as the same pertains to lands allegedly owned by the
petitioners.
Counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of
the land allotted by the Government pursuant to the scheme of
resettlement. The petitioners have put up small construction and
are carrying on their small business since years. He contended
that the petitioners could not have been evicted without prior
notice and hearing. Notice of eviction dated 16.3.10 is therefore
illegal. In support of this contention, he relied on a decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation v. Chalaram
and sons, AIR 1997 SC 31.
On
the other hand, counsel for the Valsad Municipality relying on the
further affidavit dated 1st
December 2010 contended that hearing was given to some of the
petitioners and that opposition was taken into account and no fresh
hearing is necessary.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
documents on record, I find that the petitioners had not been given
any opportunity of hearing before seeking their eviction. For
implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, as held by the Apex
Court, such opportunity was necessary. Though the respondents have
produced along with further affidavit in reply dated 1st
December 2010, a notice issued to the father of one of the
petitioners, such notice does not appear to be for their eviction.
The reply of the noticee would reveal that the same was with respect
to demolition of the construction put up by him. In any case, the
respondents have not produced any notice to rest of the petitioners.
In
that view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 16.3.2010
calling upon the petitioners for implementation of the Town Planning
Scheme is set aside. It will, however, be open for the respondents
to proceed further after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
to the petitioners. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top