C/SCA/8140/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8140 of 2025 ========================================================== VYAS MANOJBHAI KANTILAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR M R SAIYED(3362) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 23/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 under Section 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short ‘the GPMC Act’) under which the petitioner has been provided 15 days time to remove the unauthorized construction. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia submitted that he is no more appearing for respondent No. 3. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M. R. Saiyed for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hirday Buch for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed for the petitioner submitted C/SCA/8140/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 that before order under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 24.04.2023 under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act. The said notice refers to unauthorized construction along with the sketch. It is true that under the said notice, the petitioner was directed to explain for the authorized construction, however, since the petitioner is not the owner or occupier of the subject property, he did not appear and respond to the said notice. Learned advocate submitted that when the notice was issued referring to the property for which the petitioner is not concerned, the petitioner deemed it appropriate not to appear before the authority concerned and therefore there is no deliberate inaction as observed in the order dated 09.04.2025. Learned advocate however submitted that if sometime is granted, the petitioner would approach the respondent authority and explain that the property referred in the notice under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act dated 24.04.2023 as also in the order dated 09.04.2025 does not belong to the petitioner since the petitioner is neither the owner nor occupier of the subject property. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the notice issued is without jurisdiction and the same being vague in nature, the consequential order passed based on the said notice also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for respondent – Corporation pointed out that the notice dated 24.04.2023 under Section 260(1) of GPMC Act was issued along with description of the property where in the sketch of unauthorized construction, final plot No. 2/3 has been referred. No document has been produced in relation to final plot No. 2/3. C/SCA/8140/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 However, if the petitioner appears and explained which he had not done at the time of hearing provided prior to order under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act, the authority will look into the same. 6. Considering the submissions of respective parties, following order is passed:- 6.1 The petitioner herein is directed to file his explanation along with necessary documents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. 6.2 It is open for petitioner to place on record the registered sale deed of the subject property which is annexed with the petition before the authority concerned. 6.3 Once such explanation is provided the authority is directed to look into the matter and further directed to do the needful in accordance with law. 7. With the above directions, present petition is disposed of. (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PILLAI SHRIJIT P(HC01400), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/06/2025 16:26:12