Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14648/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14648 of 2010
=================================================
GAJANAN
OWNERS ASSOCIATION - THROUGH CHAIRMAN AMITBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
RR VAKIL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS
KRINA P CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 10/01/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 25.10.2010 whereby the notice for removal of
encroachment/demolition has been issued for the reasons as mentioned
therein.
2. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the building
viz. Vrajednra Complex situated on Sub Plot No. 1 over an area
admeasuring 463 sq. mtrs. of Final Plot No. 201 in Town Planing
Scheme No. 29 (Wadaj) was constructed long ago, the petitioner has a
right to apply for regularization of unauthorized portion of the
building under the provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of
Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 read with the Rules framed
thereunder. He would further submit that the petitioner having made
provision for parking, the authority ought not have issued notice on
such ground.
3. From
the record, it is not clear the year in which the building was
constructed and whether any notice was earlier issued by the
authorities to find out whether the petitioner is covered by the
Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 read
with the Rules framed thereunder. Such details having not given, the
learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the
petition to enable the petitioner to move before the competent
authority alongwith the relevant documents for regularization of the
building in question and to bring to their notice that parking space
has been made available.
4. In
view of such request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
we allow the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority, who
may notice the relevant facts and evidence as being produced by the
petitioner and may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
We only observe that this Court has not decided the case on merit nor
has passed any interim order against the notice in question.
The
writ petition stands disposed of.
[S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]
[K.
M. THAKER, J.]
sundar/-
Top