Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/30041/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30041 of 2007
=========================================================
ALKABEN
SHAHNTILAL SHAH & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NM KAPADIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS
for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2, 5,
MR RITESH K SONI for Respondent(s) :
3,
DELETED for Respondent(s) : 4,
MR YF MEHTA for Respondent(s)
: 5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the finalized Town
Planning Scheme, portion of the land which is allotted to the
petitioner has not been given vacant possession by the Municipal
Corporation. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioners are
entitled to receive the land admeasuring 1288 sq.mtrs of F.P.No.46 of
Dani Limbda, Ahmedabad.
On
behalf of the Corporation, learned advocate Mr.Ritesh K. Soni
submitted that the petitioners themselves in possession of the
substantial portion of the land. He, however, agrees that the part of
the land could not be handed over to the petitioners. This appears to
be so since the portion of the land in possession of the respondent
No.5.
Be
that it may be. The fact remains that Final Plot has brought into
existence, pursuant to which the petitioners are entitled to receive
certain final plot. The authorities therefore expected to implement
the scheme. Though it is stated that civil suits have been instituted
by the respondent No.5, admittedly, no stay has been granted since
2006.
Under
the circumstances, the petition is disposed of directing the
Municipal Corporation i.e. Respondent No.3 to ensure proper
implementation of the scheme qua the petitioners expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
It
is clarified that nothing stated in this order is meant to prejudice
the case of the respondent No.5 ? plaintiff in the pending civil
suit.
Petition
stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged.
Direct
Service is permitted.
(
Akil Kureshi, J. )
kailash
Top