- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- State Must Consider Objections...
State Must Consider Objections Filed By Persons Claiming To Be Landowners Before Sanctioning Town Planning Scheme: Gujarat High Court
PRIYANKA PREET
19 April 2022 4:47 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court has granted relief to a group of petitioners, claiming to be owners of the lands which has been reserved by the Town Planning Officer for social infrastructure under a Town Planning Scheme under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.A Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje ordered that the scheme shall not be submitted to the State Government for...
The Gujarat High Court has granted relief to a group of petitioners, claiming to be owners of the lands which has been reserved by the Town Planning Officer for social infrastructure under a Town Planning Scheme under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
A Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje ordered that the scheme shall not be submitted to the State Government for its sanction under Section 65, unless the objections filed by the Petitioners are considered in accordance with law.
It further directed that the State Government shall also consider the objections filed by the petitioners before sanctioning the preliminary Scheme as provided under Section 65 of the Act.
The Petitioners are occupants of a housing society. They averred that they were residing in their respective residences when the Town Planning Scheme was devised and sanctioned. However, it later came to their knowledge that the plot of land on which the premises were located were reserved for social infrastructure. It is due to the apprehension of losing these premises that the Petitioners filed the petition. Further, they claimed that they were not granted an opportunity to be heard by the Town Planning Officer despite individual representations.
Per contra, the AGP contended that the Town Planning Officer was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Act as laid down in the Apex Court's judgement in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another v. Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal and others (2014) 7 SCC 357.
In the rejoinder, the AGP further stated that the Town Planning officer was not in agreement with the objections raised by the Petitioners, specifically, regarding the acknowledgment of the existence of the residential premises of the Petitioners. Therefore, the High Court may have to issue independent directions for the same.
Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the High Court opined that there was no serious apprehension that the Town Planning Scheme had abdicated his duty under the Act.
"There does not appear to be any serious in apprehension to indicate that the Town Planning Officer will not perform his part as provided under the Law," the Bench observed.
However, it was of the opinion that there is a lapse of time after the Petitioners made their representation in February 2022 and there is no communication from the authorities.
Therefore, the Bench deemed it fit to direct that the Town Planning Officer consider all the objections already filed by the Petitioners as under Rule 26 of the Gujarat Town Planning Rules 1979 before submitting the final scheme for sanction to the State Government under Section 65 of the Act. The State Government was directed to consider the objections before sanctioning the preliminary scheme under Section 65 of the Act, as well. Accordingly, the petition was disposed.
Case Title: Sultanbhai Jamalbhai Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat
Case No.: C/SCA/6505/2022
