Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/260/2004 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 260 of 2004
=========================================================
SUSHILABEN
SHARTCHANDRA BATRA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
OLVIN
D' COUSTA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KV SHELAT for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS MEGHA JANI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. On
25.8.2009, a division bench of this Court (Coram: Honourable the
Chief Justice Mr. K.S. Radhakrishan and Honourable Mr. Justice Akil
Kureshi), has passed the following order:-
“This Special Civil
Application was preferred by the petitioner seeking writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to implement and to enforce the
Town Planning Scheme No.14 (Final) Shahibaug and thereby remove the
obstructions of the constructed rooms situated on 80 feet wide road
adjacent of final plot No.272 of the said road and also thereby to
make available to the public at large 80 feet wide road as per the
sanctioned scheme and also for consequential reliefs.
A detailed counter
affidavit has been filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with a map
indicating the place where the property is situated. It is stated
in para 5 of the counter affidavit that in the Town Planning Scheme
No.14 Shahibag (Final) in its original plot, there is no
reconstitution of the Town Planning Scheme as such. Further, it is
stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that as per the
redevelopment plan, the TP Road which is at the relevant time 24.40
meters on the north of final plot No.272 has been extended to 30.50
meters, thereby an area of 3.05 meters from the final plot is coming
under the road line and thus there is 80 feet road at present. It
is stated in para 7 of the counter affidavit that there is illegal
construction on approach road and that because of pendency of writ
petition, no notice could be issued for removal of illegal
construction on the approach road. Further, it is also stated that
against the encroachment, the Corporation would give notice. That
being the fact situation, no further relief can be granted in this
petition especially after a period of so many years in 2009. The
petition is disposed of”.
2. In
view of the above, this Appeal from order has become academic, hence,
this appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
pawan
Top