ANJALI BIKES -THRO ITS PROPRE ITOR RAJKUMAR R PANDEYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT THRO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

       C/SCA/3278/2012                           ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3278 of 2012

                                  With
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3622 of 2012
==========================================================
       ANJALI BIKES -THRO ITS PROPRE ITOR RAJKUMAR R PANDEY
                                Versus
        STATE OF GUJARAT THRO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARSH D. DESAI(17769) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MILAN. B. DESAI(17768) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS POOJA CHOUDHARY, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
M/S RJ RAWAL ASSOC.(1987) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                            Date : 10/06/2026
                          COMMON ORAL ORDER


1.      Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kushal Mehta for learned Advocate

Mr. Milan B. Desai for the petitioners, learned AGP Ms. Pooja

Choudhary for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Gaurang

Vaghela for M/s R. J. Rawal Associates for the respondent No.3 in both

the petitions as well as learned Advocate Ms. Simpal Rathod for learned

Advocate Mr. Nandish Y. Chudgar for the respondent No.2 in Special

Civil Application No. 3622 of 2012.


2.      At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Gaurang Vaghela on behalf of

the respondent-Corporation draws the attention of this Court to decision

of a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.02.2021 in Special

                                 Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/3278/2012                               ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




Civil Application No. 14607 of 2011 and would submit that the issue

raised in the present petitions are covered by the decision of the learned

Co-ordinate Bench. Learned Advocate would submit that the petitioners

therein, were identically situated to the petitioners herein and whereas it

is submitted that except for the name of the petitioners, the shop number

and the suit number, all other aspects remain the same. Learned Advocate

would submit that since the learned Co-ordinate Bench has rejected the

said writ petition vide decision dated 25.02.2021 and since the same

squarely covers the issue raised herein, this Court may reject the present

petitions also.


3.    The above proposition could not be countered by learned Advocate

Mr. Mehta on behalf of the petitioners, more particularly this Court has

perused the petitions as well as the affidavit-in-replies and whereas this

Court is in agreement with learned Advocate Mr. Vaghela that the

petitioners before the learned Co-ordinate Bench were identically situated

to the petitioners herein.


4.    At the same time, learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would draw the

attention of this Court to order dated 29.0.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal

No. 425 of 2022 preferred in Special Civil Application No. 14607 of

2011, i.e. the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 25.02.2021

                                 Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/3278/2012                                 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench, referred to hereinabove.

Learned Advocate would submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this

Court while refusing to interfere with the decision of the learned Co-

ordinate Bench, had reserved liberty in favour of the original petitioners -

appellants therein to challenge the order of allotment in favour of the

respondent No.5 therein, i.e. the original owner of the land in question.

Learned Advocate, taking a cue from the said order, would request that

similar liberty, as had been reserved in favour of the original petitioners –

appellants before the Hon’ble Division Bench, may be reserved in favour

of the present petitioners.


5.    Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels, more

particularly since it is undisputed that the order dated 25.02.2021 covers

the issue raised in both the writ petitions and also considering the fact that

the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 29.09.2022 confirms the

order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench, relevant portion of the decision

dated 25.02.2021 is required to be reproduced herein below :


      “2. The grievance raised in this petition pertains to the allotment
      of final plot to the petitioners in the draft town planning scheme
      and without giving the possession of the final plots to the
      petitioners the possession of the property of the petitioners should
      not be taken by the respondents.

      3.       It is not in dispute that the town planning scheme No.51,

                                  Page 3 of 7
C/SCA/3278/2012                              ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




 Ahmedabad was sanctioned by the State Government under
 Section 65 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development
 Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act, 1976’) and pursuant there to the
 Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner issued notice under Section
 68 of the Act, 1976 read with Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town
 Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the Rule,
 1979’) in the year 2006. After the draft town planing scheme was
 sanctioned by the State Government, the Town Planning Officer
 was appointed and the town planning scheme No.51 (Khokhra),
 Mhemdabad-East was published. There were civil proceedings
 initiated by the petitioners against the Ahmedabad Municipal
 Corporation challenging the aforesaid notices issued in the year
 2006, however, notices of motion applications were rejected in the
 year 2010 in Civil Suit No.47 of 2007 and Civil Suit No.53 of
 2007 as the same were not maintainable. The petitioners thereafter
 preferred the Appeal from Order No.247 of 2007 and Appeal from
 Order No. 248 of 2007 which were dismissed by this Court (Coram
 : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Anant S. Dave as he was then) vide judgment
 and order dated 3rd August, 2010. The petitioners have therefore
 filed this petition.

 4.    It is not in dispute that the respondent-Corporation issued
 notice under Section 68 of the Act, 1976 and Rule 33 of the Rules,
 1979 pursuant to the sanctioned town planning scheme. Therefore,
 this petition is not maintainable. Moreover, the Deputy Estate
 Officer of the Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit on 27 th
 June, 2012 wherein, following averments are made :

          “2. The Answering Respondent being an implementing
          authority states that Final Plot no. 88 (Original Plot no.
          52/2) is already alotted to its Original owner Shri
          Becharbhai Balabhai Bajania as per “F” form and final
          award and had removed super structure existed on 12.0 mtr
          T.P. Road in question for implementation of T P Scheme no.
          51(Khokhra ~Mehmdavad). A copy of the map showing
          superstructure removed by the corporation as well as some
          of the photographs are annexed hereto and marked as
          ANNEXURE ~ “R1",

          3. The Answering Respondent states that as provided under


                             Page 4 of 7
C/SCA/3278/2012                                 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




          section 68 of the T. P. Act, 1976, the eviction proceedings
          have been done by the corporation for implementing the TP
          Scheme in accordance with the procedure provided under
          the act.

          4. The Answering Respondent further states that earlier Civil
          Suit no. 47 of 2007 filed by the petitioner no. 2 for
          declaration and injunction contending that the plaintiff
          ( Petitioner no. 2) is the owner of suit premises situated at
          Ghodasar, near Cadila Bridge, Anmedabad. The Answering
          Respondent in the said Civil Suit was directed to consider
          the question of Compensation or to allot the area as claimed
          by the plaintiff as early as possible. The Answering
          Respondent further states that thereafter the petitioner no.2
          filed another suit being Civil Suit no. 53 of 2007 and prayed
          for declaration and injunction inter-alia contending that the
          plaintiff ( Petitioner no. 2) is the owner of the suit premises
          situated at Ghodasar, near Cadila Bridge, Ahmedabad. The
          Ld. City Civil Court rejected the said suit on the principle of
          “resjudicata”, however the earlier order was modified to the
          extent that question of compensation shall be decided by the
          concerned Town Planning Officer. Copies of the orders are
          annexed at page 96 and page no. 102 of the petitioner at
          Annexure K and Annexure L respectively.

          5. The Answering Respondent further states and submits that
          the order passed below exhibit 54 dated 12.07.2010 and
          dated 16.04.2010 were challenged by the petitioners by way
          of group of Appeal from Order numbers 245 of 2010 to 248
          of 2010. It is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court upon
          hearing the said petitions vide its order dated 03.08.2010
          was pleased to reject the said petitions also (A.O.'s). Thus,
          there is NO question of compensation and allotment of plot
          remains with the petitioners and stands concluded by the
          dismissal of petitions.

          6. The Answering Respondent further states that petitioners
          have filed present petition seeking appropriate writ, order or
          direction, directing Respondents to give appropriate final
          plots in the same survey numbers having the same
          commercial potentiality in lieu of their original plot.

                              Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/3278/2012                                   ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




                7. The Answering Respondent states that the scope of giving
                appropriate final plots to the petitioners herein have already
                been dealt with by this Hon'ble Court in the Appeal from
                order no. 245 of 2010 to Appeal from Order no. 248 of 2010.
                Hence, the present petition would be operated as
                “resjudicata” and hence the same deserves to be dismissed
                and not maintainable. Moreover, the plot is question is
                already allotted handed over to the Original owner as above
                stated.

                8. Since the petitioners could not obtain any relief in the civil
                Suits as well as Appeal from Orders, they have preferred
                present Petition and have tried to start second round of
                litigation on same grounds. ”

       5.     In view of the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-
       reply, the petition would not survive and is accordingly dismissed
       as the grievance raised in the petition is not in existence as the
       authority has already allotted the final plot No.88 as per Form “F”
       and has removed the super structure existed on 12.0 Mtr TP road in
       question with regard to the implementation of the town planning
       scheme No.51. Notice is discharged.”


6.     Having regard to the request made by learned Advocate for the

petitioners and the order passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench and

the Hon’ble Division Bench, the following directions, in the considered

opinion of this Court, would meet with the ends of justice.


(i)    Special Civil Application Nos. 3278 of 2012 and 3622 of 2012 are

disposed of as rejected, on basis of the observations of the learned Co-

ordinate Bench made in the order dated 25.02.2021 in Special Civil

Application No. 14607 of 2011.

                                     Page 6 of 7
         C/SCA/3278/2012                                                            ORDER DATED: 10/06/2026




 (ii)      Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners herein to challenge

 allotment of final plot so made in favour of the original owner, if there is

 any such right available to the petitioners and also subject to just

 exceptions. It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any

 opinion with regard to maintainability of such challenge, if made before

 appropriate forum.




                                                                                       (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
 BDSONGARA


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHUPENDRASINH DHANESINH SONGARA(HC01082), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/06/2026 11:44:27




                                                       Page 7 of 7