- (1.)BY filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to quash and set aside the reservation on the land bearing City Survey No. 3848, Tika No. 86, situated at Navsari town, and to declare that the reservation qua the land in question, is deemed to have lapsed and that the said land stands released from reservation. It is further prayed that the action of the respondent No. 3 in re-reserving the petitioners' land in the revised Draft Development Plan be quashed and set aside as being illegal, and the preliminary Notification dated 18-8-2007 showing that the land of the petitioners is proposed to be re-reserved, also be quashed and set aside.
(2.)RULE was issued on 21-4-2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.
(3.)THE brief facts of the case, as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto, are that the petitioners are co-owners of the land bearing Survey No. 3848, Tika No. 86, situated at Navsari town. By Notification dated 16-3-1985, issued under the provisions of Sec. 17 (b) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development act, 1976 ("the Town Planning Act" for short), the land of the petitioners was placed under reservation for the purpose of construction of Municipal Staff quarters. It is averred that one of the co-owners of the land, namely, Shri amrutlal Maganlal Desai had filed Special Civil Application No. 3101 of 1992, challenging the reservation of the land in question. This petition was rejected by the Court on the ground that the petitioner was unable to substantiate his challenge to the reservation. Subsequently, Shri Amrutlal Maganlal Desai had issued a notice dated 17-5-1995 to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which, admittedly was not in consonance with the requirements of Sec. 20 (2) of the Town Planning act. However, the said co-owner Shri Amrutlal Maganlal Desai, co-owner of the land in question, issued another notice dated 18-9-1995 through an Advocate, calling upon the respondents to initiate action for the acquisition of land, either by agreement or through the process of acquisition, within a period of six months from the date of issue of the notice, failing which the reservation upon the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed, and the land would stand de-reserved. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the service of the notice under Sec. 20 (2) of the Town Planning Act, no action whatsoever has been initiated by the respondents, and therefore, a right has crystallised and accrued in favour of the land owners, including the petitioners, as contemplated by the provisions of Sec. 20 (2) of the Town Planning Act, upon coming into force of the deemed fiction. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of de-reserving their land as per the provisions of Sec. 20 (2) of the Town Planning act, the land of the petitioners is proposed to be reserved vide preliminary notification dated 18-8-2007. Being aggrieved by the above stated acts of omission and commission of the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present petition.