The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition seeking direction to the respondents to remove/demolish illegal encroachment in Gujarat Housing Board, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. A single judge bench of this Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Nirzar S. Desai held that unless the petition specifies particular illegal encroachment, the plea for demolition will not be maintainable.
Brief Facts:
In the present petition, the petitioner had prayed for the following relief-
- To admit and allow the present petition.
- To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to remove/demolish illegal encroachment in Gujarat Housing Board, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad.
Observations of the Court:
This Court looking at the reliefs where the petitioners have prayed for very wide prayer to remove/demolish illegal encroachment in Gujarat Housing Board, Chandkheda, and on perusal of the petition, finds that the petitioners have not specified as to which specific illegal encroachment the petitioners want to get removed. Despite repeated queries from this Court, the learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out how the petitioners are aggrieved and which illegal construction affects the petitioners. Therefore, it was noted that without even specifying the encroachment area, the aforesaid very wide prayer is made.
In view of this Court, unless the petition specifies particular illegal encroachment, the Court would not be in a position to issue any direction either to Gujarat Housing Board or to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Further, the petitioner’s locus considering the prayer, is questionable. If the petitioners prefer this petition as aggrieved persons, in that case, it was expected from the petitioners to specify a particular encroachment for which the petitioners are seeking demolition. Due to the above observations, the present petition was dismissed.
The decision of the Court:
The Gujarat High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the petition will not be maintainable if the petitioners failed to specify the encroachment area.
Case Title: Rajveer Pravinchandra Upadhyay & 4 Ors. v. State of Gujarat & 3 Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nirzar S. Desai
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11451 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: - Mr. JAY R SHAH
Advocate for the Respondents: - MR PRASHANT G. DESAI, SR ADVOCATE with MR DEEP D VYAS
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments