Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6610/1994 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6610 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
CHAMPABEN
RAMANBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRAVINKUMAR
PETRIC TAILOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BC DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR CB DASTOOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
NIKUNT RAVAL ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 29/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
present petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State dated 13/12/1993 whereby
the revision application of the petitioner was rejected and the order
passed by the Collector dated 24/05/1993 came to be confirmed.
2. The
shorts facts of the case are that petitioner purchased the final plot
NO.497 of Revenue Survey No.166 T.P. Scheme No.12 of Nizampura,
Vadodara by a registered sale deed from one Ashokkumuar Ishwardas.
The Collector, Vadodara by his order dated 30/06/1992 granted NA
Permission under the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code of the land in question and the Vadodara Municipal
Corporation has also granted permission to construct upon the said
land. However, the Collector by its order dated 24/05/1993 ordered
to remove construction made on the plot, against which petitioner had
preferred a Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary
(Appeals)which came to be dismissed. Hence the present petition.
4. The
contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that
petitioner was a bona-fide purchaser of the plot No.497 for the value
without notice and respondent No.2 ought not to have held that
construction was on the common plot and is required to be removed.
It is contended that as such there is no Co-operative Society
registered and therefore in the Final Plot where there are different
plots, question would not arise to keep the common plot. It is lastly
submitted that respondent No.1 having failed to obtain injunction
from the competent Civil Court, made a representation before the
Collector who in turn passed the order of removal of constitution
made in Final Plot No.497 without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner to show cause or of hearing.
5. Having
heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and having perused the
orders passed by both the authorities below, this Court is the
opinion that both the authority have categorically held that common
plot was sanctioned with NA Permission which can be proved from
Annexure – A VII issued by the Deputy Town Planning Officer,
Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The revisional authority has
specifically held that permission qua 16 % was given by the
Corporation for the purpose of common plot utility and not for misuse
of it by way of selling. It is of the joint ownership of the plot
holders as well as in the map of original Town Planning Scheme
wherein the Final Plot No.497 is shown as reserved land for garden.
Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are just and
proper and do not require to be interfered with.
6. This
Court is in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the
authorities below. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs. Interim-relief, if any, stands
vacated.
(K
S JHAVERI, J.)
sompura
Top