MANEK CULTURE CENTRE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-119
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 31,2020

Manek Culture Centre Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOTA SINGH AND ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SZOMA V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. HAKIMWADI TENANTS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
M VENUGOPAL VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA MACHILIPATNAM A P [REFERRED TO]
HARISH TANDON VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD U P [REFERRED TO]
VOLTAS LIMITED BOMBAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
G VISWANATHAN AZHAGU THIRUNAVUKKARASU VS. HONBLE SPEAKER TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MADRAS ANOTHER:HONBLE SPEAKER TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MADRAS ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MANCHERI PUPTHUSSERI AHMED PANNIKOT MADATHIL LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA VS. KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER:KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES:LABOUR COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AHMEDNAGAR VS. SHAH HYDER BEIG [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE HANDLOOM AND HANDICRAFT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. JAIN SCHOOL SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. K THANGAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD VS. DEVINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
P T MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY VS. REVAMMA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN LTD VS. MADDULA RATNAVALLI [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN VS. PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK AND CHEM LTD [REFERRED TO]
C K PRAHALADA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
MADHURIBEN AMRUTLAL PARIKH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF PRABHUDAS RAMDAS PATEL VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
VIMLABEN SOMABHAI VS. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAKBHAI J SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
PRABHABEN HARSHDRAY DESAI VS. STATE OF GOVERMENT [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. HARI RAM [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. AHMEDABAD GREEN BELT KHEDUT MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ANITA INTERNATIONAL VS. TUNGABADRA SUGAR WORKS MAZDOOR SANGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CHHABILDAS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners have prayed for the following relief/s:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or an appropriate writ, order or direction to hold that designation/reservation of the sub-?plot No.3 to 10 of Revenue Survey No.1, Tikka No.C-?9/1, situated at Taluka Vadodara as stated in para no.4.1 of petition, District Vadodara lapsed in view of the provisions contained in Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976;

(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or an appropriate writ, order or direction to hold that the petitioners are entitled to develop the land mentioned in the chart above situated at Revenue Survey No.1, Tikka No.C-?9/1, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara, in accordance with law, subject to, however petitioners applying for and authorities granting development permission in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976;

(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issu a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or an appropriate writ, order or direction to permanently restrain the respondent authorities in placing the land of the petitioners under any reservation/designation in any development plan;

(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to permanently restrain the respondent authorities from creating any obstructions from developing the land in question in accordance with the provisions of GDCR;

(E) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted;"

(2.)As this Court has issued notice for final disposal, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that this petition be disposed of finally at admission stage. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 4 and 6, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.5 and learned advocate Mr. Mitul K. Shelat waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.7.
(3.)The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and occupiers of the land bearing sub-?plot Nos.3 to 10 of Revenue Survey No.1, Tikka No.C.9/1, situated at Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara. It is stated that name of partnership firm is also mutated vide entry No.1842 and thereby partnership firm of the petitioners became owner and occupier of the subject land. It is stated that measurement through DILR was also carried out on site and as per the share of the firm, proper demarcation has been made on the site of the subject land.

3.2. It is stated that Draft Development Plan in respect of the subject land was initially prepared under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (Bombay Act) which was published in the Government Gazette on 29.01.1967 and after making necessary modifications in the Draft Development Plan submitted by Vadodara Municipal Corporation, the competent authority sanctioned the said development plan and thereafter notification was published in the Gazette on 13.03.1969. Thereafter, on 21.09.1970, the Draft Development Plan under the Bombay Act was sanctioned.

3.3. It is also submitted that the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976') was enacted in June 1976 which has come into force w.e.f. 01.02.1978. The subject land designated in the residential zone in the sanctioned development plan of Vadodara was released from the said residential use and the subject land was reserved for open space. Thereafter, Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) came to be constituted, which had prepared Draft Development Plan for the development of Vadodara and it was published in the Government Gazette on 17.05.1979. Under the said plan, the subject land was also designated for open space. It is stated that while preparing the Draft Development Plan, objections and suggestions were invited which were considered and thereafter there was proposed modification which was published in the Government Gazette on 27.01.1983. After considering the objections and suggestions, notification dated 22.12.1983 was published in the Government Gazette. The Draft Development Plan was sanctioned subject to modifications. It is stated that under the final development plan, subject lands were designated for various purposes such as open space, sports stadium, bus terminal 1 and 2 and university. Thus, the subject lands continued to be reserved/designated w.e.f. 25.01.1984. The period of 10 years was over on 24.01.1994. Thereafter, on 26.11.1996, first revised development plan was published. In the said revised development plan, the subject lands were reserved for bus terminal and M.S. University. The period of 10 years was over on 24.11.2006.

3.4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that after the period of 10 years was over on 26.11.1996, the predecessor of the petitioners issued notice under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1976 to the concerned authority on 10.08.2001. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 17.10.2001 which was duly served to VUDA.

3.5. It is also stated that the petitioners purchased the subject lands by registered document dated 28.03.2002 registered with office of Sub Registrar, Vadodara and thereby the petitioners became the owner and occupier of the subject land. The petitioners, thereafter, again issued notice dated 22.05.2002 to the respondent authority. However, no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities for acquisition of the subject land.

3.6. It is also stated that so far as first revised development plan which came into force on 26.11.1996 is concerned, period of 10 years was over on 24.11.2006. Petitioners, therefore, once again issued notice dated 22.01.2007 under the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act of 1976 and thereby petitioners called upon the concerned respondent authority to initiate the process of acquisition of the subject lands, otherwise, the reservation would be lapsed as per the provisions contained under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1976.

3.7. It is the case of the petitioners that in respect of plot No.11 of Revenue Survey No.1, Tikka C-?9/1, one of the petitioners' firm viz. Vrundavan Party Plot filed Special Civil Application No.13731 of 2005 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and therefore the said petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No.112 of 2009 before the Division Bench of this Court. It is stated that the Division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeal vide order dated 25.03.2014. Against the said order, the respondent - State and another filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 23.03.2018 and thereafter present petition is filed by the petitioners immediately in the year 2018.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.