Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4620/2010 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4620 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
ARJUN
ODEDRA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGING
DIRECTOR - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR MASUD I
PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
RITURAJ M MEENA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner who is holding industrial plot in G.I.D.C. Engineering
Estate, Gandhinagar has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondent to allot one plot to the
petitioner for residential purpose.
2. It
is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as petitioner is holding
two plots in G.I.D.C. Engineering Estate of Gandhinagar in Sector 28,
which are used for industrial engineering purpose. As per the policy
of the G.I.D.C., he is entitled to one plot for residential purpose.
He has submitted that infact under the guise that 20% quota for
allotment of residential plot to the engineering units is already
exhausted, even petitioner has not been issued the form. It is the
case on behalf of the petitioner that there is no such policy of 20%
ceiling. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner
be considered alongwith other applications which are pending since
2005.
3. Affidavit-in-reply
is filed on behalf of respondent. It is categorically stated that as
such there is a scheme/policy which is consistently followed by the
G.I.D.C. That 20% of the residential plots are reserved for the
engineering units and 20% are reserved for employees and there are
other reservations also. It is submitted that last allotment of
residential plot was made in the year 2005 and thereafter, the
G.I.D.C. has stopped allotting residential plots to the owners of the
engineering units as their quota is exhausted. It is further
submitted that even otherwise petitioner is not entitled to the
residential plot in as much as wife of the petitioner, who is also
Joint Director in the company of the petitioner i.e. Biocare Remedies
Private Limited, was infact allotted one residential plot considering
the policy prevailing at that time and wife of the petitioner has
sold the said plot by registered sale deed executed in the year 2009.
Therefore, it is submitted that infact as one plot was already
allotted, petitioner is not entitled to second plot. It is further
submitted that even otherwise considering the aforesaid conduct, it
appears that petitioner does not want to use the residential plot
which may be allotted to him for residential purpose as the plot
which was already allotted to his wife, is already sold. It is
submitted that plot is to be allotted for their own use and
residential purpose. Therefore, it is submitted that even otherwise
petitioner is not entitled to residential plot.
4. Having
heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, it
appears that as such petitioner is Managing Director of one Biocare
Remedies Private Limited who has industrial engineering plots and for
the purpose of allotment they are clubbed together and the Joint
Director of the said company i.e. wife of the petitioner was infact
allotted one residential plot as per the policy of the G.I.D.C..
However, wife of the petitioner has sold the said residential plot by
executing registered sale deed in the year 2009. As per the policy,
one of the Director and/or partner is entitled to residential plot
and the wife of the petitioner being Joint Director of the company of
the petitioner was allotted residential plot which is sold. Now
again, the petitioner wants a residential plot. It is to be noted
that the residential plot is required to be given for their own
residential use and purpose and not for the purpose of sale. As
stated hereinabove, the wife of the petitioner who was allotted
residential plot as Joint Director of the Company has sold the plot
and not used the plot for their own residential purpose. It is
submitted that as wife of the petitioner is staying at Ahmedabad and
the residential plot was at Gandhinagar, she has sold it. It is to
be noted that petitioner is staying with his wife at Ahmedabad.
Therefore, there are all possibilities that the petitioner will not
use the residential plot. As stated hereinabove, the plot which was
already allotted to the wife of the petitioner is sold by executing
sale deed in the year 2009. Under the circumstances, prayer of the
petitioner to direct the G.I.D.C. to allot residential plot to the
petitioner, cannot be granted.
5. Even
otherwise, considering the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that there
is some quota and the residential plots to be allotted to the owners
of the engineering units is exhausted. It is true that no such
policy/scheme is forthcoming. However, as stated in the
affidavit-in-reply, it is consistent practice and not only that,
infact the G.I.D.C. has stopped allotting residential plots to the
owners of the engineering units since year 2005 and no other plot
holders having engineering units are allotted any residential plots
thereafter.
6. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no
substance in the petition which deserves to be dismissed and is,
accordingly, dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top