Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16148/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16148 of 2007
=================================================
VASI
AHMED RAJIYODDIN PATHAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
MAYUR H MALKAN for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RM CHHAYA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 26/06/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
What
is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
is apprehended demolition of the shops situated in Pujarini Chali
near Chartoda Kabarasthan, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad.
2. Mr.Chhaya,
learned advocate for the Corporation states that the Corporation had
issued notice under Section 212 (1)(b) of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 calling upon the petitioner to show
cause as to why the petitioner’s shops should not be removed and why
the land below the same should not be acquired for the purpose of
widening the road. It is submitted that the contentions raised in
this petition were also raised in Special Civil Application No.6019
of 2007 and connected matters. Those petitions came to be dismissed
by order dated 23.04.2007 of this Court and the Special Leave
Petition against that order has also been dismissed on 15.04.2008.
It
is also stated that the representations made by those petitioners not
to demolish the property and not to acquire the land have been
dismissed and, therefore, the present petition may also be
dismissed.
3.
Mr.Malkan, learned advocate for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is a poor person and, if the shop of the
petitioner is demolished, the petitioner will have to wait for years
to get compensation from the Corporation and, in the meantime, the
petitioner will be without any source of income.
4. Mr.Chhaya
states that the Corporation will make an endavour to pay compensation
to the person entitled to receive the compensation for the land in
question as early as possible.
5. Having
heard the learned advocates for the parties, we are of the view that
the interests of justice would be served if the petition is disposed
of with a direction that the petitioner shall hand over the
possession of the shop in question to the respondent Corporation
within one week from today and the Corporation shall pay compensation
to the person entitled to receive the compensation for the land in
question within one week from the date of getting possession of the
land in question.
It
is directed accordingly.
It
is also directed that while paying compensation, the Corporation
shall take into account the rates prescribed by the State Government
in the recent Jantri which has come into force on 1st
April, 2008.
6. It
is clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
determining compensation and claims higher compensation, it will be
open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings for
higher compensation, but that does not mean that handing over of the
property in question can be delayed.
The
petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions and
clarification.
Liberty
to apply in case of difficulty.
(M.S.
SHAH, J.)
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.)
Hitesh
Top