C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7884 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No YES ========================================================== SHAIKH NASRINBI MOHAMMAD AKEEL & ORS. Versus THE APPELLATE OFFICER , GRUDA -2022 & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 CHANDNI S JOSHI(9490) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 17/06/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3 and learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for respective parties, the present petition is taken up for hearing today. 3. This petition is filed challenging the notice dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure-H, Page No. 108) issued by respondent No. 3 – Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA), under Section 36(4) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short ‘the TP Act’) whereby the petitioners are directed to remove unauthorized construction within a period of 7 days, failing which appropriate action under Section 36(5) of the TP Act has been indicated. Challenge against the order rejecting the application of the petitioners, under the provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 (for short ‘the GRUDA-2022’) and rejection of appeal under Gruda-2022, is also contended in the petition. 4. The facts in brief as referred in the petition are as under: - The petitioners (in all 24 in number) herein are residents of locality known as T. G. B. Park, Surat (herein after referred as ‘subject premises’). It is case of the petitioners that they are C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 residing over the subject premises since last many years. In support, they have relied upon their Agreement to Sale of the year 2021. It is further case of the petitioners that the T.G.B Park is situated at Block No. 80, Survey No. 4, Bhanodara, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat. The land was originally owned by Prabhubhai Lallubhai Surati and was transferred to Rais Bismilla Patel through notarized sale deed dated 22.01.1998 (not registered). Subsequent thereto, Mr. Rais Bismilla Patel floated a plotting scheme by selling the plots and were sold to one Wasim Akram Hussain and in turn Mr. Husaain sold it to present petitioners for which possession letter (Kabja Receipts) are placed on record. It is therefore case of the petitioners that therefore, in view of possession letters (Kabja Receipts) the petitioners are in lawful possession of the subject premises constructed on the plots situated on T.G.B. Park. 4.1 It is case of the petitioners that the property in question is subject matter of Civil litigation where Rais Bismilla Patel (predecessor in title) had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 275 of 2016 before Surat Court seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the original owner. The said suit was dismissed however, one more Regular Civil Suit No. 293 of 2016 was also filed seeking cancellation of other deeds. The petitioners have also filed Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2024 before Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat seeking C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 declaration and permenant injunction against various parties to protect their possessory rights. In view of pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 293 of 2016, till the title over the subject property gets decided, the petitioners may not be dispossessed by issuance of notices dated 04.06.2025. Therefore, this petition is filed challenging the notices dated 04.06.2025 with prayer to direct respondents not to act upon the notices dated 04.06.2025 issued under Section 36(4) of the TP Act. Since petitioners’ application seeking regularization of unauthorised construction and the appeal challenging same were rejected, both orders are also challenged. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 293 of 2016, to submit that, the said suit is filed by Mr. Rais Bismilla Patel (predecessor in title) against respondent No. 5 (newly added). Further, the petitioners are having possession letter (Kabja Receipt) and the title of property is yet to be decided, therefore, the petitioners may not be dispossessed by effecting the notice dated 04.06.2025. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioners are in possession of subject premises since years. The Kabja Receipt of the year 2021 shows the occupancy of the petitioners since then. Moreover, the petitioners have purchased the said property by payment of C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 consideration and therefore since they are in lawful possession, the respondents may be directed not to act upon the notice dated 04.06.2025. 5.1 Reliance is also placed on the application made under the provisions of GRUDA Act seeking regularization of unauthorized construction. Learned advocate submitted that the said application was rejected and against the said rejection order, appeal was filed. The Appeal Authority rejected the appeal, and the order of rejection of appeal is also subject matter of present petition. Therefore, the notice dated 04.06.2025 may not be acted upon. 5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners in support of his submissions has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v.s. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 to submit that issuance of notice dated 04.06.2025 and passing of order rejecting the GRUDA application, were in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioners also relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Jignesh Ramanbhai Patel v.s. Appellate Officer and Administrative Manager and Ors reported in 2021 GLH (2) 608 to support his contention that for seeking regularization of C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 unauthorized construction, ownership is not the criteria to be considered. 5.3 Further, the impugned communication by notice dated 04.06.2025 issued by SUDA is nothing but an abuse of power and therefore the same being without jurisdiction, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 Moreover, the legislation of GRUDA has been enacted to give benefit to the persons who are facing difficulty of unauthorized construction. This being a beneficial legislation, the order of appeal authority ignoring the provision of beneficial legislation is bad in Law. Therefore, the order of the Appeal Authority challenging rejection of GRUDA Application, being contrary to the intent of the legislation deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support, learned advocate has relied upon definition of ‘Occupier’ to submit that the petitioners since being in occupation of the subject premises while deciding the application under provisions of the GRUDA-2022 as also while rejecting the appeal under the provisions of the GRUDA-2022, the authority has not taken into consideration the provisions of the GRUDA-2022 in the correct perspective and therefore the notice as well as the appeal order rejecting the application under GRUDA -2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Page 6 of 19 C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 5.5 Learned advocate for the petitioners therefore submitted that this petition may be allowed directing the respondents not to act upon the notice dated 04.06.2025 as also to quash and set aside the appeal order dated 02.06.2025 passed under the provisions of the GRUDA-2022. 6. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appeared for respondent No. 3 – SUDA. Learned advocate by placing reliance on affidavit at Page No. 127 submitted that this is a misconceived petition. On facts, learned advocate submitted that a complaint dated 06.10.2023 with regard to unauthorized construction on land bearing Revenue Block No. 80, Survey No. 49 of Village Bhanodara, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat was received. Accordingly, certain documents as referred in the notice were called for by addressing a show- cause notice dated 19.12.2023 under Section 36(1) of the TP Act. In response to the same, the petitioners through their representative Mr. Ekram Patel appeared on 03.01.2024, and requested of adjournment. Accordingly, the hearing was kept on 18.01.2024. Thus, first opportunity on 03.01.2024, was granted to the petitioners to place on record, relevant documents by granting 15 days’ time. On 18.01.2024, without filing any documents, one more adjournment was sought and the matter was adjourned to 03.02.2024. Thereafter, once C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 again, time was provided and the matter was adjourned to 05.02.2024. Thus, prior to the final notice dated 05.02.2024, several opportunities were granted to the petitioners to provide documents in relation to the subject premises. In response to the final notice, the petitioners made representation on 12.02.2024. Challenging the notice dated 05.02.2024, petition was filed being Special Civil Application No. 3649 of 2024, wherein this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners by providing opportunity of hearing. Thus, principles of natural justice have been complied with by providing opportunity by issuance of notice to the petitioner to remain present on 20.05.2024. Despite that, the petitioners did not remain present. Since, simultaneous application seeking development permission was preferred by the petitioners, the same was considered and rejected on 24.04.2024. The reason for rejection was that the petitioners failed to provide necessary documents in support of the same. Therefore, the contentions raised about the petitioners having lawful possession does not merit acceptance. 6.1 Moreover, the GRUDA authority rejected the application of the petitioners dated 15.06.2024 seeking regularization of their unauthorized construction. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeal challenging the order dated 15.06.2024 and the same was also rejected on 02.06.2025. Therefore, in this C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 case, it is evident that the petitioners though are in possession of the subject premises, they have failed in producing the required documents in support of their case seeking regularization of unauthorized construction. Therefore, in this case, the petitioners are occupiers of unauthorized construction and therefore the notices were rightly issued. Even from the order dated 02.06.2025 of the appeal authority rejecting GRUDA application, it is noticed that no documents have been produced as required along with the appeal and therefore the appeal does not require any consideration. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the petition being devoid of merits, does not call for interference. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi also relied upon the opportunities earlier provided to the petitioners by granting time to represent their case by placing necessary documents on record. However, the petitioner failed in doing so. He further submitted that the appeal authority in its order dated 02.06.2025 has recorded reasons in rejecting the appeal, therefore, the order being appropriate, no interference is called for. Learned AGP therefore submitted that in view of sanctioning of Draft Town Planning Scheme, the notice issued under Section 36(4) of the TP Act being appropriate, this petition does not require any consideration. Page 9 of 19 C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 8. Learned advocate Mr. Kanojiya for respondent No. 5 by placing reliance on affidavit dated 14.06.2025 (Page -157) submitted that respondent No. 5 herein is the lawful owner of the subject property. In support, learned advocate has placed reliance on registered sale deed dated 07.06.2006 (Annexure- R9, Page No. 252). Reliance is also placed on the revenue entries (Annexure-R10, Page No. 267&268) to submit that respondent No. 5 is the lawful owner of the subject property. Moreover, as referred in the reply filed by SUDA authorities; several opportunities were granted to the petitioners before notice dated 04.06.2025. Further, the second round of litigation may not be ignored. In this case, in the application seeking regularization of unauthorized construction under GRUDA Act, the petitioners could not produce any documents in support of their application. The same was the situation before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, there is no error in the notice dated 04.06.2025 as also the appeal order dated 02.06.2025 rejecting application under the GRUDA Act. The action taken by SUDA by issuance of notice dated 04.06.2025 was pursuant to rejection of appeal under the GRUDA Act. Hence, the entire petition being misconceived, no interference of this Court is called for. 9. Considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon. Revisitation of certain facts would be necessary. This is second C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 round of litigation. Earlier a complaint dated 06.10.2023 was received by respondent no.3- SUDA, regarding unauthorised construction of subject premises. (Annexure-A- page 135). Pursuant to which a report by surveyor of SUDA was prepared dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure-D, Page-138) and sent for necessary action along with revenue record and photographs. Accordingly, notice dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-F page 140) was issued under Section 36 (1)(2) of the TP Act by respondent – SUDA, fixing the hearing on 03.01.2024 and to provide documents referred in the said notice. In response to the same, representative of the petitioners appeared on 03.01.2024 and sought time till 18.01.2024 to file necessary documents. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned on 18.01.2024. On 18.01.2024, no documents were produced and once again, on a request made, the matter was adjourned to 03.02.2024. Therefore, evidently after notice dated 19.12.2023, the petitioners were provided opportunities to file necessary documents, which they failed in filing. It appears that based on the revenue record, notice dated 19.12.2023 was issued in the name of erstwhile owners. Thereafter, the notices under Section 36(1)(2) dated 05.02.2024 were issued to occupants of the subject premises, who are petitioners herein. The notices dated 05.02.2024 was subject matter of challenge in SCA No. 3649 of 2024 wherein this Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 18.02.2025, on a request made on behalf of C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 petitioners that since their application seeking regularization of unauthorised construction is rejected, they would prefer appeal within one week challenging that order. This court while disposing of the petition, permitted the petitioners to prefer appeal under GRUDA -2022, along with necessary documents. Protection of not to take any coercive action in relation to demolition was granted till the decision on appeal. It is noticed that the appeal against order dated 15.06.2024 (rejection of GRUDA application) was rejected by an order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure-K Page 151). Consequently, the order dated 04.06.2025, under Section 36(4) of the TP Act was passed. 10. If the order dated 15.06.2024 is re-visited, it states that the petitioner failed in producing requisite documents as also failed in answering the queries raised on 26.04.2024. The appeal authority also while rejecting appeal by an order dated 02.06.2025, observed that no documents have been produced by the petitioners as directed along with the appeal memo. The Appellate Authority prior to order dated 02.06.2025 also provided one more opportunity to place on record the documents, which the petitioners have failed. Earlier also when SUDA authorities issued individual notices dated 05.02.2024, the petitioners were provided with opportunities to raise their grievance with the necessary documents in support of their claim. Neither before the GRUDA Authority nor before the C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 Appeal Authority, the petitioners produced any documents as required in support of their claim. Most importantly, even in the present petition, the petitioners have not annexed a single document justifying their claim of regularization of unauthorized construction. Therefore, the submission that despite existence of beneficial legislation, the authority failed in accepting the application of the petitioners’ seeking regularization of unauthorised construction does not merit acceptance. The petitioners do not possess vested right to continue with unauthorised construction. Further, the opportunities granted to the petitioners to produce the documents to support their construction, as referred herein above does not justify the contention made on behalf of the petitioners’ that orders passed were in breach of principles of natural justice. 11. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of suit which has recently been filed by the petitioners seeking title over the subject property would not ipso facto make the order dated 02.06.2025 under the GRUDA Act illegal, more so in absence of any supporting documents. 12. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaniz Ahmed v.s. Sabuddin and Ors reported in 2025 INSC 610, wherein it is C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 held as under:- “5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions: “(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned. (ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records. (iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified. (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. Page 15 of 19 C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment. (viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co- operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge. (ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non- issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided. (x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions would come down C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law. (xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned. (xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that her client be given one chance to pray for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. We do not find any merit in such submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees. 7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]” 13. In view of above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by Appeal Authority under the provisions of GRUDA-2022 as also the notice dated 04.06.2025 issued under Section 36(4) of the TP Act by respondent No. 3 – SUDA. 14. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. No Cost. Page 18 of 19 C/SCA/7884/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2025 15. However, considering that the petitioners are residing over the subject premises since 2021, respondent SUDA is directed to act upon the notice dated 04.06.2025 by providing them 15 days’ time to vacate their premises from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Time of 15 days to act on notice is granted, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as precedent. So far as Civil Suit is concerned, this Court has not rendered any opinion on the same. In the Suit, contentions of respective parties are kept open. sd/- (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 14:26:17