Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Appearance vs Unknown on 20 December, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/16040/2010	 1/ 3	ORDER 
 

	

 


IN THE
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16040 of 2010
 

=========================================================

 

CHANDRAPRAKASH
NARAYANBHAI DAVE 

 

Versus
 

LAXMANSULA
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for the Petitioner 

 

=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/12/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
matter was mentioned in the morning for urgent circulation at 2.30
p.m. Permission was granted. Papers are received from the Registry.

1.1. Leave
to amend.

2. Heard
learned advocate Champaneri for the petitioner. The learned advocate
for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of Lavad Case
No.817 of 2008, the Board of Nominees vacated the interim relief
granted at the time of filing of the suit after two years after
bi-parte hearing.

2.1. Against
that order of the Board of Nominees, the petitioner approached the
Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal by filing Revision Application
No.56 of 2010 in Lavad Case No.817 of 2008. Exh. 5 and the Revision
Application No.56 of 2010 are rejected by the Hon’ble Tribunal by
order dated 30.11.2010. It is against this order that the petitioner
is before this Court.

3. The
learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble
Tribunal has given undue importance to the fact that the petitioner
is not able to produce the certificate of regularisation of
construction put up by the petitioner by AUDA, though the petitioner
had produced a receipt showing payment of Impact Fee by him.

3.1. Besides,
the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
construction put up by the petitioner is of the nature which is
permissible and the only irregularity is that the petitioner did not
obtain permission at the time of putting up the construction but,
later on, after making payment of impact fee, the construction
stands regularised.

4. Besides,
the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as the Lavad
Case No.817 of 2008 is pending before the Board of Nominees, and for
all this time, the injunction granted against demolition was
operative, which is vacated by the Board of Nominees by bi-parte
hearing, against which a revision was filed and the stay application
is rejected, the interest of justice would be served if the Board of
Nominees is directed to hear and decide the Lavad Case No.817 of 2008
in a time frame and in the meantime, the authorities be directed to
maintain the status-quo qua the construction in question.

4.1. The
learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it will be in the
interest of justice to order the authorities to maintain the
status-quo qua the construction in question because the construction
is not in the nature of any encroachment or obstruction to even
neighbouring properties. The only irregularity is that the petitioner
did not obtain prior permission for putting up the construction and
it is for that, the petitioner already stands punished by way of
payment of impact fee.

5. NOTICE
returnable on 21st
December 2010. In the meantime, ad-interim relief in terms of para
15(D).

Direct
service is permitted today.

(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)

omkar

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.119 seconds.