Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13637/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13637 of 2010
=========================================================
VINUBHAI
JIVABHAI PATEL & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
M/S
THAKKAR ASSOC. for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 14/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
relief.
(A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the
impugned action of respondent No.2 in seeking to reduce area of the
subject land bearing Survey No. 242 situated at Village: Harni,
District: Vadodara admeasuring 44,111 square meters by 13,231
square meters as being unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and also
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(B) Your
Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent No. 2 from
proceeding further with the decision to reduce subject land covered
by subject land bearing Survey No. 242 situated at Village: Harni,
District: Vadodara admeasuring 44,111 square meters to the extent of
13,231 square meters and thereby change the status of the subject
land, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition
(C) …….
2.0 Having
considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that
representation was made by the petitioner to the respondent No.
2-Town Planning Officer, Vadodara on 22.07.2010. However, the
petitioner has stated that the decision is already taken without
hearing him and without considering his objection in the
representation dated 22.07.2010. No notice is placed on record.
Therefore, it will not be appropriate to entertain this petition on
presumption of the petitioner that the representation of the
petitioner is rejected.
3.0 If
such decision is already taken, it will be open for the petitioner to
point out to the State Government that his objection by
representation dated 22.07.2010 is not considered by the Sub-ordinate
officer before recommending to the State Government.
4.0 With
the above observation, petition stands disposed. Direct service is
permitted.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top