IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14936 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ================================================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ================================================================ RAMABHAI MOTIBHAI BHARWAD Versus GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GIDC) & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.SUNIL B DAVE(9936) 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 : 10/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for nal hearing today. 2. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 seeking following reliefs: p. 1 “A) Admit/allow the present petition, in the interest of justice; B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned communication issued by the Resp. No.1 which was received by the petitioner on dtd: 31/12/2022, forthwith, in the interest of justice; C) Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order or Direction and by directing the Resp. No.1 and 2 to accept an application regarding GRUDA Ordinance No. 3 of 2022, in the interest of justice; D) Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order or Direction & direct the concerned o0cer of the Respondent Corporation i.e. Respondent No.1 to adopt the Ordinance called Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development, 2022 as it is applicable to Unauthorized Development in the Municipal Corporation Aras, Nagarpalika Areas & development Areas in the state of Gujarat forthwith, in the interest of justice; E) Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order or Direction & direct the concerned o0cer of the Respondent Corporation i.e. respondent No.1 to Regularize Unauthorized Construction constructed in the premises known as LIG-II-2/25 Quarter situated in the Estate of Respondent GIDC as the petitioner is Ready and willing to furnish the impact fee as per the measurement of Unauthorized Construction & Impact Plan, forthwith, in the interest of justice; F) Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order or Direction & direct the respondents to Insert the name of the petitioner as owner /occupier in the record of premises known as LIG-II-2/25 quarter, situated in the Estate of Respondent GIDC, forthwith, in the interest of justice; G) Pending, admission, & ;nal disposal of the present petit, be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order or Direction and be directing to the Respondents, their men, agents, servants or assignees from p. 2 removal OR demolish any part of Residential Premises bearing Quarter NO. LIG-II-2/25, forthwith OR to Grant Status-Quo, in the interest of justice. H) Any other and further reliefs may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner is challenging the impugned communication dated 31.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.1, whereby the respondent has turned down the request made by the petitioner to regularize the unauthorized construction in the premises known as LIG-II-2/25 Quarter, whereby, it is stated that the Ordinance regarding Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development (GRUDA) is not applicable to Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) Estate. That, the petitioner had challenged the impugned Notices dated 18/09/2018 and 29/10/2018 regarding removal of unauthorized construction before this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ Petition vide Special Civil Application No. 1950 of 2021 whereby, the petition came to be disposed of with certain directions wherein the petitioner was directed to le an undertaking for removal of unauthorized construction of the said property and after the removal of such unauthorized construction the respondent was directed to process the petitioner's application form for transfer of the said property. That, on 17/8/2022, the State Government had published the Gujarat Regulation of Unauthorized Development Ordinance, 2022 in the Government Gazette and subsequently, the petitioner had approached the authority with application dated 02/12/2022 seeking regularization of above referred property, which came to be rejected by the authority on the p. 3 ground that the said ordinance is not applicable to GIDC Estate. That, the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish impact fees according to the measurement which is in respect to the impact plan. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatis ed with the impugned communication dated 09.12.2022 issued by GIDC, Ahmedabad, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials available on record. 6. Mr. Parekh, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent no. 1 has martially erred in law and facts in turning down the request made by the petitioner, in view of the said Ordinance regarding regularization of unauthorized development because the said ordinance is applicable to entire State of Gujarat including Municipal Corporation Areas, Nagarpalika Areas and Development Areas in the State and despite that, the Respondnet No.1 has stated that the said ordinance is not applicable to GIDC Estate. He has submitted that the respondents ought to have considered Section 5 of the said Ordinance because the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the said Section. The provision laid down u/s. 5 of the said Ordinance reads that, "at any time on or before 30th September, 2022, a notice issued to an owner or occupier or any order issued or decision taken under the relevant law except under the provisions of RERA, 2016, requiring such owner or occupier to remove or pull down or alter unauthorized development carried out shall be deemed to have suspended unless and until the p. 4 notice, order or decision stands revived of sub-section 2 of Section-6." He has submitted that in the instant case also the respondents had issued the removal notice on 18/9/2018 and 29/10/2018 i.e. before 30th September 2022 and hence, the petitioner's legitimate right is accrued under the said Ordinance. He has submitted that the respondent corporation has issued impugned notice dated 18/9/2018 to the rst owner viz. Shri Rajeshkumar J. Raval of the premises who had thereafter, transferred the premises Jayantilal Ambalal Patel on 26/8/2013 and thereafter, the second owner has transferred in the name of petitioner on 29/8/2018 and that the petitioner had never received any notice before except on 11/1/2021. He has submitted that the respondent ought to have issued notice for removal of unauthorized construction to the petitioner since the petitioner has been in legal occupancy since 2018 when he got executed agreement to sale with the second owner of the said premises however, the petitioner came to know only on 11/1/2021 when he went for inquiry about name transfer application dated 29/9/2018 and reminder dated 11/1/2021. Over and above the contentions raised in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Parekh has urged that the impugned communication passed by the GIDC is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed. 7. As against that, Ms. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that GRUDA Act is brought into force for the purpose of regularizing of the unauthorized development in the Municipal Corporation areas, Nagarpalikas and Development areas in the State and therefore, the same cannot be ipso-facto made applicable to GIDC. She has submitted that p. 5 the petitioner had shown his willingness to remove the unauthorized construction and accordingly had given an undertaking before this Court in the earlier round of litigation for removal of unauthorized constructions. However, the petitioner has not adhered to the said undertaking and directions and thus, the petitioner has Couted the orders passed by this Court and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned communication issued by GIDC, Ahmedabad. It appears from the record that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 02.08.2022 (at page 17) had recorded the undertaking of the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction situated upon the subject parcel of land. As detailed on page 86, this encroachment encompasses an area of 41.075 sq. meters. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2022 had issued directions to the petitioner in para-4 which reads as under: “4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is directed to ;le an undertaking for removal of unauthorized constructions on the property in question. The respondent Corporation shall inform with regard to unauthorised constructions made in such properties. On removal of such unauthorized constructions, the respondent-Corporation shall accordingly process his application form for transfer of the property of GIDC Estate. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.” Despite the petitioner’s undertaking, he has not complied with the above directions till today and has not removed that p. 6 encroachment and, therefore, the concerned authority is unable to exercise and implement the order and transfer the property of the GIDC Estate. Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides and considering the fact that the petitioner himself has not complied with the above mentioned order and not removed the unauthorized construction, the petition deserves to be dismissed as he has Couted the order passed by this Court. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI p. 7 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 17:28:24