IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13707 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No No ========================================== LATE GUNVANTBHAI DALSHUKHBHAI SHAH THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIR PRANAV GUNVANTBHAI SHAH Versus GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. ========================================== Appearance: MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS DRASHTI D SHAH(11443) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI S PATHAK(5619) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 16/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Ms.Pathak, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- p. 2 (A) Yours Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in nature of Mandamus to set aside the decision taken by authority to terminate the lease agreement dated 10.05.2021 and consequential order / communication dated 19.07.2021 and 17.08.2021 to take the possession of the property and to restore the possession in the interest of justice. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the authority to place any decision taken by them on the application of petitioner dated 11.09.2017 in the interest of justice. (D) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to restrain the respondent authority to create third party right in the plot in question. (E) Pass such any other reliefs in the interest of justice. 4. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record. 5. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the original allottee i.e. father of the petitioner expired since long and his application for transferring the ownership in the name of the petitioner was pending and in the meantime, the respondents have passed an order. He submits that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. p. 3 6. Ms.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. Having considered facts of the present case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner to make fresh application before the respondents pointing out the fact that the original allottee, against whom the order was passed, was expired within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the writ of the order. The respondents shall decide the application in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and considering the documentary evidence that may be produced along with the application as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also file application online and all necessary documentary evidence shall also be uploaded. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL