Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/17211/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17211 of 2005
==============================================================
AMRUT
KAKALDAS KIRI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
Mr Ravindra R Shah
for Petitioner(s) : 1 and MRS
KANAN R SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
Mr R R Marshall, for
Respondent(s) :
1,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA
Date
: 26/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA)
The
petitioners’ grievance is that despite the fact that their
unauthorised construction has been regularised by charging impact fee
under the provisions of Gujarat Regularizaion of Unauthorised
Development Act, 2002 (for short, ‘GRUDA’), the respondent has now
come out to demolish the said construction by serving notice dated
21.5.2005. It is the say of the petitioners that in the said notice,
the construction has been termed as ?Sunauthorised?? as the same
has been raised on the margin land and they have been asked to
demolish it within the stipulated time indicated in the notice.
2. Mr
R R Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners has reiterated these
facts by way of his submissions and he has also drawn our attention
to various documents annexed to the petition including the notice
served under section 3(2) of GRUDA and pursuant to the order of
regularization of the unauthorised construction.
3. However,
at present only the notice has been issued and no final decision has
been taken by the respondent. Since certain facts are controverted
by the respondent by way of submissions of Mr R R Marshall, learned
Advocate appearing for the respondent, it is not possible for us to
decide the questions of fact arising in this petition. The
petitioners, if they so desire, can certainly make representation to
the respondent and point out to the respondent all the documents
which are today shown to us and request for withdrawal of the
notice. In view of the same, we direct that if such a
representation is made by the petitioners, the respondent shall
decide it within three weeks of the receipt of it after affording
opportunity of hearing to them and whatever decision that may be
taken by the authority, the same shall be intimated to the
petitioners. It is stated by Mr Shah that the petitioners will file
representation within a week from the date of this order.
4. In
view of the aforesaid directions, nothing more is required to be done
in this petition and it is disposed of accordingly. We may make it
clear that if the representation as stated above is made within one
week, respondent no.1 shall observe status-quo as on today.
[Kshitij
R Vyas, J.]
[Akshay
H Mehta, J.]
msp
Top