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


Gujarat High Court
Jayendrabhai vs State on 22 March, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3448/2011	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3448 of 2011
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3703 of 2011
 

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

 

JAYENDRABHAI
SOMCHANDBHAI DHANDHUKIA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
:
 

 S.C.A.
No.3448 of 2011 
MR
CL SONI FOR M/S S G ASSOCIATES
for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR PRANAV DAVE, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR R.R. MARSHAL SR.ADV. WITH MR SATYEN B RAWAL
for Respondent(s) : 2, 
None for Respondent(s) : 3 - 5.
 

 S.C.A.
No.3703 of 2011 
MR
CL SONI FOR M/S S G ASSOCIATES
for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS JIRGHA JHAVERI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR SATYEN B RAWAL R.R. MARSHAL SR.ADV. WITH for
Respondent(s) : 2, 
None for Respondent(s) : 3 - 5.
 

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


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/03/2011 

 

 
COMMON
ORAL ORDER

As common question of law and
facts arise and as such both petitions arise out of the common
order passed by the appellate authority, they are being disposed of
by this common order.

In both these petitions, the
respective petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order
and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the Development
Permission dtd.31/5/2010 granted by the Chief Executive Officer,
Surendranagar Area Development Authority granted in favour of the
respondent No.2 (Annexure-B); order dtd.3/8/2010 passed by the
Collector, Surendranagar in Municipal Case No.34 of 2010
(Annexure-C) as well as order passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal
Nos.15 and 17 of 2010 dtd.14/12/2010 (Annexure-D).

Having heard Mr.C.L. Soni, learned
advocate appearing no behalf of the respective petitioners; Mr.R.R.
Marshal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Satyen
Rawal, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.2, Mr.Pranav Dave as well as
Ms.Jirgha Jhavweri, learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing
on behalf of the State authorities, it appears that the main dispute
was with respect to granting of Development
Permission by the Area Development Authority in favour of the
respondent No.2, permitting the respondent No.2 to put up
construction on the lands in question. It appears that the main
apprehension on the part of the petitioners is that the respondent
No.2 will put up the construction and use the said construction
de-hors the sanctioned plan and development permission granted by
the respondent No.2.

Mr.R.R.

Marshal, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr.Satyen Rawal,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, in
whose favour Development Permission has been granted, has stated at
the bar under the instruction of respondent No.2 – Dr.Shreyans
Paramanand Gandhi, who is personally present in the court, that the
respondent No.2 shall put up the construction and use the same
strictly in accordance with Development Permission and sanctioned
plan. That an Undertaking to that effect is also filed by the
respondent No.2 on oath, which reads as under :-

“(1) My
construction is on my private and independently owned plot and not on
the Society’s plot.

(2) My
construction is not contrary to the bye-laws of Surendranagar
Municipality

(3) The
construction which I have put up is not contrary to the bye-laws of
Prabhat Co-Operative Society (cancelled bye-laws) which have been
mischievously shown with a view to misguide the Court.

(4) I
shall carry out the construction and use the same as per the plans
which may be sanctioned by the Municipality and after obtaining
appropriate permission for use.

(5) I
state that running hospital in a residential area is permissible. I
further state that I, myself, am going to live on the second floor.

(6) I
further undertake that I shall try my best and utmost to see that no
nuisance takes place or that beighbours are not put to any
inconvenience.

(7) I
shall try my best to see that neighbourhood benefits rather than
suffers by this development and that all of under
section can
survive harmoniously together.”

Mr.Soni, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has
submitted that what is stated in the undertaking by the respondent
No.2 is not similar to that of statement made by Mr.R.R. Marshal,
learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

Be
that it may, when a statement has been made on behalf of the
respondent No.2, recorded hereinabove, that the respondent No.2
shall not put up the construction and use the same contrary to the
Development Permission and sanctioned plan, there is no question to
doubt the same at this stage.

Mr.Soni,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners
has submitted that if the respondent No.2 has to act as per the
statement made hereinabove, the petitioners do not press the present
petition challenging the Development Permission granted by the Area
Development Authority confirmed by the appellate authority, in
favour of the respondent No.2 and the petitioners do not invite
reasoned order.

In
view of the above, both these petitions are disposed of by directing
the respondent No.2 to act as per the statement made by Mr.Marshal,
learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2,
who is personally present in the Court, which is recorded
hereinabove.

It
goes without saying that if in future it is found that the
respondent No.2 has put up the construction and use the same
contrary to Development Permission and/or sanctioned
plan, it will be open for the aggrieved party to approach the
appropriate authority, which may be considered in accordance with
law and on merits.

It
also goes without saying that it will always be open for the
respondent No.2 to submit revised Development Permission and
revised plan, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
However, no construction and/or use shall be made by the respondent
No.2 unless the Development Permission is granted and revised plans
are sanctioned.

With
the observations and directions as aforesaid, both these petition
are dismissed as not pressed.

[M.R.

SHAH, J.]

rafik

   

Top


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.158 seconds.