AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirzar S. Desai, J
By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order 22.03.2017 issued by the respondent -Nagarpalika (at ANNEXURE – M hereto);
[AA] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to remove the seal applied on the property of the petitioner.
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order 22.03.2017 issued by the respondent – Nagarpalika (at ANNEXURE – M thereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status-quo with respect to the properties in question of the petitioners;
[BB] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass an interim relief that until the disposal of this petition, the Respondent authorities be directed to respondent authorities to remove the seal applied on the property of the petitioner.
(C) Pass any such other and / or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”
Heard learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dharitri Pancholi for the respondent- State and learned advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela for Karjan Municipality.
3.1 It is the case the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the the owner of the land situated at City Survey No.219 and 220 and petitioner no.2 is the owner of the land situated City Survey No.219 of Village:Karjan, Dist.Vadodara. As the petitioners wanted to put up construction over the aforesaid lands, they preferred application seeking permission along with necessary documents. Ultimately, Raja Chitthi was granted vide order dated 02.11.2011 and the petitioners started constructing on the lands in question.
3.2 On 08.01.2016, Respondent No.1 - City Survey Superintendent, Dabhoi issued notice to the petitioners and others stating that they are using ground-floor of the premises in question for commercial purpose whereas the permission is granted to the petitioners for using it as residential purpose as the petitioners enjoying the permission for ‘B-01 tenure land’ and thereafter after issuing another notice when the petitioners replied to the said notice, the same was not accepted and ultimately petitioners’ premises were sealed by Karjan Municipality on 28.03.2017. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, petitioners preferred present petition.
During the pendency of the petition, both the petitioners have jointly affirmed an affidavit dated 20.02.2023 wherein in para:1 of the affidavit it is stated as under:
“1. For the property in question we state that we shall use the same in the accordance with the plan which is sanctioned and we shall use the same for residential purpose only till we get valid permission for change of tenure and therefore considering the present affidavit the seal applied by the respondent no.2 on 28.03.2017 may be open as we state that petitioner will use property in question as per the sanctioned Raja Chithi dated 02.11.2011.”
5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar based on aforesaid affidavit submitted before this Court that now since the petitioners have already decided to utilise the property in question only in accordance with sanctioned plan for residential purpose only and for change of tenure the petitioners have already preferred another petition being Special Civil Application No.8969 of 2020, which is pending before this Court, the petitioners may be permitted to utilise both the premises in question only for residential purpose subject to final outcome of Special Civil Application No.8969 of 2020 and as now the petitioners have undertaken not to utilise premises for any other purpose than the residential purpose, the respondent Municipality may be directed to remove the seal and permit the petitioners to use it for residential purpose as per sanctioned plan.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar also submitted that the Corporation may verify as to whether the petitioners are using premises in question as per sanctioned plan and permission or not.
Both the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dharitri Pancholi for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela appearing for respondent Municipality opposed the petition. However, considering the affidavit of the petitioners dated 20.02.2023 whereby the petitioners have undertaken to use the premises only for the purpose for which the plans are sanctioned, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to remove the seal and to permit the petitioners to utilise their respective properties for residential purpose. Hence, the following directions are issued.
6.1 The petitioners are directed to file two separate undertaking in line with the affidavit dated 20.02.2023 filed before this Court and as reproduced in the present order, in forgoing paras, before Respondent Nos.1 and 2 both indicating that will use the permission only as per sanctioned plan and approval for residential purpose. Such undertaking to be filed within a period of four weeks from today;
6.2 Respondent authorities are directed to open the seal immediately within a period of one week from the date of order of both the premises in question and permit the petitioners to utilise the premises for residential purpose;
6.3 It is open for the authorities to carry out inspection of the premises periodically to ascertain whether the premises are being used as per undertaking given by the petitioners for residential purpose only or not;
6.4 The voluntary action of the petitioners to give undertaking before this Court and before the authorities that both premises shall be used for residential purpose only shall not come in the way of the petitioners in pursuing another petition and all the rights and contentions of both the petitioners as well as respondent authorities are kept open;
6.5 The disposal of this petition is based on an undertaking given by the petitioners and as the Court has not considered merits of the matter, this interim arrangement till the final disposal of Special Civil Application No.8969 of 2020 shall not be construed as binding to either side even after that petition is decided.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, present petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
Direct service is permitted.