Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15317/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15317 of 2010
=====================================
MEMUNABIBI
D/O AHMED LALA THROUGH POA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SURAT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH COMMISSIONER & 5 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6.
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Many
a times the people like petitioner takes inspiration from the News
Items. It appears that the present petitioner has also taken
inspiration from the News Items appearing about the demolition of
illegal construction and removal of encroachment in the Print Media.
The petitioner – Memunabibi D/o. Ahmed Lala is
before this Court through her Power of Attorney holder Rannaben
Harishkumar Patel.
The prayer sought for in this petition is as under:
“11(B). Issue
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned
respondent authorities to look into the grievance of the
petitioner made in the representation / notice of the petitioner
dated 31/7/2010 (29/7/2010) and to take appropriate action for
removal / demolition of illegal and unauthorized construction carried
out by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 upon the land being Final Plot No.
28, T. P. Scheme No. 16, admeasuring 18469 sq. mtrs. situated at
Mouje Village Kapodra, Dist. Surat in the aforesaid peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case.”
(emphasis supplied)
2.0 Learned
advocate Mr. NK Majmudar for the petitioner submitted that one
Ajaybhai Ramdas Jadhav, resident of 12, Pashupatinath Society, Nana
Varachha, Surat filed complaints to the Vigilance Department of the
Surat Municipal Corporation on 18th March 2009 and 19th
March 2009, which are replied by communication dated 5th
May 2009, copies of which are produced at Page Nos. 23 and 24. From
the aforesaid applications it is clear that the Corporation had
granted Development Permission bearing
No. East Zone/TD/46 dated
29 th November 1997.
‘On Owners’ Plot admeasuring 18469 sq. mtrs., all constructions
are unauthorized’. This permission was granted qua Final
Plot
No. 28.
2.1 It
was inquired from the learned advocate for the petitioner as to who
Ajaybhai Ramdas Jadhav is, the learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that, ‘he is a member of the same group’. When it
is inquired, as to what ‘group’, he submitted that, those who are
complaining about the illegal / unauthorized construction in Final
Plot No. 28. The learned advocate for the petitioner is not able to
point out as to how this Ajaybhai Ramdas Jadhav is interested in
removal of unauthorized construction on Final Plot No. 28.
3.0 What
is required to be noted is that the Development Permission was
granted in the year 1997 and the extent of unauthorized construction
is mentioned to be 18469 sq. mtrs. A judicial notice can be
taken of the fact that, this construction must not have come up
overnight and therefore, the present litigation is a litigation with
ill-design and oblique motive. Without making the bona-fides
clear of the petitioner, the Court refuses to grant any indulgence to
the petitioner and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed
and it is accordingly dismissed.
3.1 However,
in the interest of justice it is clarified that, non-entertainment of
this petition does not give, in any way, the ‘seal of approval’ to
the construction, which is referred to by the Corporation itself in
its communication dated 5th May 2009 as ‘unauthorized
construction’. At any point of time, when the Corporation proposes
to remove or take action against this unauthorized construction,
non-entertainment of this petition should not be pleaded as ‘seal of
approval’ by this Court to the aforesaid unauthorized construction.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top