KHALIDHUSSAIN HAIDERBHAI CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Judgment

#1. Learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner has requested for draft amendment to join “Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad City (East)” as party respondent No.5. The same is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.

#2. This petition is filed challenging Notice issued under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act read with Rule 33 of Gujarat Town Planning Rules, 1979 dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure “A”, Page-19), whereby the petitioner was treated as occupier of the land in question, and further directed to give peaceful and vacant possession of the land in question. C/SCA/7184/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025

Heard learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk for respondent No.3.

#4. Learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is exclusive owner of Plot No.C admeasuring 748 sq.mtrs. situated at Shree Jyotnagar Co-Op. Housing Society Limited, beside Khursid Park, Sarkhej Road, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”). In support of ownership of Plot No.C admeasuring 748 sq.mtrs. situated at Shree Jyotnagar Co-Op. Housing Society Limited, the petitioner relied upon registered sale deed dated

07.10.2002 (Page-28). Learned advocate submitted that therefore ownership of the land in question with the petitioner is not in dispute. Thereafter, pursuant to the Town Planning Scheme No.93/C (Gyaspur-Vejalpur), the petitioner’s land has been considered and as against the petitioner’s original plot, final plot is required to be given, however, the same was not done and hence, the petitioner raised his objections. In support of his submission, learned advocate relied upon objections raised on 28.04.2025 (Annexure “B”, Page-22).

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi submitted that it is case of the petitioner in his objection it is his case that though the C/SCA/7184/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 petitioner is owner of the land in question and though his original plot has been considered as part of development of Town Planning Scheme No.93/C (Gyaspur-Vejalpur), he has not been given Final Plot whereas other members of the society have been allotted Final Plot.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi relied upon “F” Form (Annexure “C”) to submit that “F” Form doesn’t reflect the name of the petitioner though he is owner of subject land. Learned advocate submitted that though the petitioner is owner of the land, his name is not reflected, Town Planning Authority may be directed to make correction in “F” Form by allotting Final Plot to the petitioner against his original plot, otherwise the petitioner would be rendered remediless.

4.3 On the query raised for the revenue record, learned advocate submitted that in the revenue record (7/12 extract), the petitioner’s name has been recorded as pencil entry, however actual entry is required to be made, for which, the petitioner will be filing an application before the Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad city (East) under section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code and therefore, respondent – Mamlatdar may be directed to decide the said application within stipulated time period. C/SCA/7184/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025

#5. Opposing the present petition, learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk for respondent No.3 submitted that the sale deed justifying ownership of the petitioner of subject land is on record. However, Town Planning Authority is to consider the revenue record (7/12 extract) and accordingly “F” Form is prepared. In this case, since revenue record (7/12 extract) doesn’t contain the name of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner’s name has not been considered for allotment of final plot. However, learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk could not dispute that once the revenue entry reflects name of the petitioner, Town Planning authority is duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of final plot. Once that revenue record is placed before Town Planning Officer, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

#6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi for respondent Nos.1 & 2 could not dispute that it is open for the petitioner to make an application for correction in the revenue record under section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code.

#7. In view of the above facts, following directions are issued: C/SCA/7184/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 (i) The petitioner is directed to make an application under section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. It is open for the petitioner to place the registered sale deed along with the said application. (ii) Once such application is filed, the respondent- Mamlatdar is directed to decide the said application, as required under section 135-D of the Act. (iii) Respondent - Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad city (East) shall make entry in the revenue record (7/12 extract) basis the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and in accordance with law. (iv) Once such entry is made in the revenue record (7/12 extract), the petitioner shall produce the said revenue record to the Town Planning Officer with his request to allot him final plot against his original plot. (v) Once such objections are received along with the application by the petitioner, Town Planning Officer is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. This exercise shall be done by the Town Planning Officer C/SCA/7184/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 before sending Town Planning Scheme No.93/C (Gyaspur- Vejalpur) to the State Government for its sanction.

#8. With this, the present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. sd/- (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) DIPTI PATEL... Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.