C/SCA/8708/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8708 of 2025 ========================================================== MARIYAMBIBI IKBALBHAI NAGORI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: HARSHIT R PUROHIT(8385) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS SUMAN MOTLA, LD.AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 03/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging the Notice dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure “A” Page-8) issued under Section 68 read with 33 of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, whereby the petitioner has been granted ten days’ time to give peaceful and vacant possession of the subject land, failing which, appropriate action has been indicated. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Harshit Purohit for the petitioner submitted that the Notice dated 13.12.2024 is bad in law. The petitioner is in ownership of survey No.100/3. Since Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.38/1 (Dani Limda- East) was sanctioned by the State Government on 04.05.2022, the C/SCA/8708/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 petitioner has been allotted Final Plot No.18 against her original plot No.18 (Survey No.100/3). However, since the final plot allotted to the petitioner was in joint ownership without any demarcation in relation to petitioner’s land, she made representation to Town Development Inspector (Annexure “C” Page 29). Despite that, no action has been taken till date. So far as ownership of the petitioner in survey No.100/3 in original plot No.18 is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on sale deed (Annexure “B” Page-10). Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the said land in question in the year 1993 through registered sale deed. However, on account of some technical difficulties/payment of stamp duty, the same was registered in the year 2008. Therefore, appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent-corporation. 3. Opposing the present petition, learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk invited attention of this court to the sale deed, to submit that the said sale deed refers to joint ownership of original plot No.18. So far as Town Planning Officer is considered, he has to act as per the revenue record (7/12 extract) and the authority has acted by allotting final plot against original plot as per revenue record (7/12 extract). Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/8708/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 Moreover, Form-F does not contain the name of the petitioner since the revenue record (7/12 extract) does not show ownership of the petitioner for original plot No.18 (survey No.100/3). Therefore, question of any demarcation of petitioner’s land would not arise. However, if an application is to be made for demarcation, if the petitioner is owner of original plot No.18 (survey No.100/3), then the same is to be made to the Committee as constituted under section 67-A of the Town Planning Act. Learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk submitted that Section 23 and 25 of Registration Act, 1908 would not permit belated registration. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also supported the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the respondent- corporation. She submitted that till date; no application as referred under section 67-A of the Act has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Considered the submissions and the documents on record. It is noticed that grievance of the petitioner is in relation to non-allotment of demarcated plot, pursuant to finalization of Town Planning Scheme No.38/1 (Dani Limda- East). The said scheme was sanctioned under section 65(1) of the Act by the C/SCA/8708/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 State Government vide its Notification dated 04.05.2022. 6. Pursuant to finalization of Town Planning Scheme by its Notification dated 04.05.2022, allotment of Final Plot against the original plot has been referred in the said Notice. However, it cannot be ignored that reliance placed by the petitioner is only registered sale deed in her favour in year 2008 (Page-10). The revenue record is not annexed to justify the ownership of the petitioner on subject land. It cannot be ignored that the document is registered document in the year 2008. In these factual situations, it is open for the petitioner to make an application, in accordance with law, seeking change in revenue record. If any change is made on such application, it is open for the petitioner to make an application under section 67-A of the Town Planning Act to the committee, as referred therein. With this, the present petition is disposed of. (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) DIPTI PATEL... Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: DIPTIBEN PIYUSH PATEL(HC00191), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/07/2025 17:55:48