Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2539/1998 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2539 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
VIPUL
B SHAH & 51 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NK RAVAL AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR RENU CHAUDHARY for MR YN OZA for
Respondent(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 04/10/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
Court on 31.03.1998 had passed the following order :-
“Leave to add City
Survey Superintendent, Deesa and Gordhangi G. Mali as respondents
nos. 4 & 5 respectively. Notice returnable on 7th
April, 1998. If the respondent no. 3 passes an order adverse to the
Deesa Municipality the same shall not be implemented for a period of
one week from the date of communication. Direct Service is permitted.
To be heard with Spl. C.A. No. 1939/1998.”
2. This Court in Special
Civil Application No. 1939 of 1998 had passed the following order :-
” The petitioners, two residents of Deesa, have
filed this petition for challenging the grant of land in
Deesa town for the purpose of construction of town hall
and library by the Deesa Municipality. The said action
is being challenged on the ground that the land in
question was meant to be a playground for children and,
therefore, the Municipality be restrained from putting up
any construction thereon.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court,
affidavit in reply is filed by the Chief Officer, Deesa
Municipality pointing out that the petitioners have made
various incorrect statements and the petition is not
filed bona fide. It is specifically stated that
petitioner No. 1 is publishing a weekly newspaper and
since the Municipality is not giving advertisements in
the same, in order to pressurize the Municipality the
present petition is filed.
3. On merits, the affidavit in reply has given a
detailed history of the project under challenge. The
land in question is shown in the development plan as land
reserved for the purposes of the Municipality and is
placed in the Commercial zone. Earlier the land was
granted by the Government to the Municipality for the
purpose of garden for only 15 years from 1968, but
thereafter the grant was not renewed. The project of
construction of a shopping centre was to be commenced in
the year 1987 and the Central Government sanctioned a
loan of Rs. 50.38 Lacs for the said project under a
scheme called “Integrated Developmental of Small and
Medium Towns”. The project was for the construction of
shops. Even in the year 1993, the land in question was
ordered to be granted to the Municipality for the purpose
of constructing a shopping centre, but the Municipality
could not make arrangements at that time to pay the
purchase price to the Government. Therefore, the
Government had on 3.1.1996 decided to auction the land
for the commercial purpose, but on account of the
consistent demand of the Municipality for constructing
town hall and public library from the funds which may be
obtained out of auction of the shops, the Government
decided on 10.10.1997 to grant the land to the
Municipality to construct the shopping centre. The price
was fixed at Rs. 18,43,846/-. Upon payment of the said
price to the Government by 9.12.1997, the Government
issued the order granting the land to the Municipality on
13.12.1997. It is pointed out that since the land in
question is in commercial zone, after getting grant of
the land from the Government, the Town Development and
Town Planning Committee of the Municipality sanctioned
the building plans.
4. At the hearing of the petition, Mr Mehul Rathod,
learned counsel appearing for Deesa Municipality has
stated that recently the Municipality put the property
constructed on one floor to public auction which has
fetched a sum exceeding Rs. 1 Crore and it is submitted
that the Deesa Municipality has been acting bona fide and
in public interest and any interference by this Court at
this stage would destroy the entire project which is
ultimately going to benefit the people of Deesa at large.
Mr Rathod has further stated that in the Development
Plant, the land is not reserved for the purposes of the
garden or playground and that there are other lands in
the development plan which are reserved for the purposes
of garden/playground which are not going to be disturbed
by the Municipality. However, the petitioners have
approached this Court without making any bona fide
inquiries on these lines, but have come forward making
rackless allegations against the Municipality and
respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court is of the view that the aforesaid public
project of construction of a town hall and a public
library and construction of shops for getting funds for
the aforesaid project and for augmenting public revenue
does not call for any interference and that too at
the instance of the persons whose bona fides are under a
serious cloud.
6. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution is, therefore, summarily dismissed. Notice
is discharged.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioners are directed to pay respondent No. 1 –
Municipality costs of this petition which are quantified
at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).”
3. In view of the aforesaid order, this petition also stands disposed of on the same line. However, Ms. Renu Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 states that respondent no. 5 has expired in the year 2005. Hence, petition qua respondent no. 5 stands abated. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top