IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4154 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ============================================================== ============================================================== SANJAY APTE &5 - Petitioner(s) Versus SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION &2 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR BS PATEL for Petitioner No(s).: 1,2,3,4,5. MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Petitioner No(s).: 1,2,3,4,5. MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent No(s).: 1. Mr H L Jani, AGP for Respondent No(s).: 2. ================== ============================================ CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date : 22/06/2005 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 of any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1. 2. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA) Rule. Mr P G Desai, learned Advocate waives service of rule for respondent no. 1 and Mr H L Jani, learned AGP, waives service of Rule for respondent no.2. The petitioners, five in number, are owners of either residential premises or commercial premises. Their structures are situated at Udhana Bhedwad Road (Indira Gandhi Road, Surat). They have expressed their apprehension in this petition that they will be uprooted from this place for the purpose of constructing 200 ft. wide road as approved in the Town Planning Scheme prepared for this area. They also apprehend that at the instance of respondent no.2, respondent no.1 will demolish their premises without providing alternative accommodation. 2. Heard Mr P G Desai, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr H L Jani, learned AGP for respondent no.2. Mr Desai states that so far as the shops of petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned, they are already demolished. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he is having his Nursing Home at the aforesaid place. It is further stated that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned he is having residential premises and he has already vacated the same. So far as petitioner no.5 is concerned he is having his residence-cum-commercial premises which is still to be demolished. It is further stated that the said premises is at present partially vacated and partially occupied by these petitioners. Mr Desai further states that the petitioners have already applied for grant of alternative accommodation. Their applications are considered by respondent no.1. So far as petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned, they have already been allotted alternative accommodation. So far as petitioners No. 1 is concerned, it is stated that his application has been made later. However, the lots have already been drawn but till this date, he has not approached respondent No.1 for selection of the site. It is also stated that if he approached and selected his site, the same will be allotted to him as per the draw which is already made. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the lots have yet to be drawn and as soon as the same is done, the petitioner no.2 will be offered suitable alternative accommodation. It is also stated by Mr Desai that since it is purely a residential premise, petitioner no.2 shall not be asked to vacate the premise till 15.10.2005. Mr B S Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that since petitioners No.2 and 5 are required to vacate their residential premises and they will make necessary application to respondent no.1 for granting them reasonable time to raise construction on the plot that may be allotted to them by respondent no.1. In view of this, in our opinion, following directions can meet the ends of justice: [Kshitij R Vyas, J.] [Akshay H Mehta, J.] msp