AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biren Vaishnav, J
1 Heard Mr.V.B.Malik, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent, Corporation.
2 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the notice dated 29.11.2013 issued by the Corporation under Section 260(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. By the impugned notice, the petitioner has been asked to remove the illegal construction made in her premises.
3 Mr.Malik, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is a widow residing in ancestral house. He would further submit that since some part of the house was old and damaged, it was required to be renovated lest it collapses. He would also submit that the petitioner not knowing that permissions were necessary for such construction, made such constructions for which the notice impugned in the petition had been issued by the Corporation.
4 Mr.Pandya, learned advocate for the Corporation, would submit that because of an application made by one Kanubhai alias Mansingh Vaghela, Corporation was prompted to initiate action under Section 260(1) and because of the pendency of the petition, no further action has been taken.
5 Mr.Malik, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that even Mr.Kanubhai now has no objection to the additional construction made in the premises and would submit that the petitioner is willing to make an application to the Corporation to regularize such construction, if permissible in law.
6 Looking to the aforesaid developments, an appropriate action in accordance with law be taken if the petitioner makes an application for regularization of the construction made on the premises, particularly if such regularization is permitted in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.