Challenge to Statutory Vires Cannot Mask Encroachment on Land Reserved for Public Roads in Town Planning Schemes

The petitioners, claiming to be owners/occupiers of certain blocks in the Adarshnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 67, 68, and 105 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976

The dispute arose after the Final Town Planning Scheme No. 19 (Kali-Chenpur) was sanctioned by the State Government on January 7, 2008

Under this scheme, Final Plot No. 115 was allotted to the Society, and a 12-meter public road was carved out through land occupied by the petitioners

Consequently, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation issued eviction notices on June 3, 2013, and subsequently rejected the petitioners' objections on July 31, 2013, classifying them as unauthorized occupants

1. Whether Sections 67, 68, and 105 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and Rule 33 of the associated Rules are ultra vires the Constitution of India

2. Whether the eviction notices and subsequent orders issued by the Municipal Corporation were illegal and without authority of law

3. Whether the petitioners had established a legitimate ownership right over the land reserved for a public road to maintain the writ petition

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, specifically Section 65(1) regarding the sanctioning of Final Schemes

Sections 67, 68, and 105, which facilitate the vesting of land in the appropriate authority and the summary eviction of unauthorized occupants from plots reserved for public purposes

Rule 33 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules regarding procedural enforcement

The court found that the petition lacked merit and was characterized by the concealment of material facts. It noted that while the petitioners claimed ownership of the plots, they failed to disclose the date, nature, or description of their allotment or how they acquired ownership rights

Crucially, the court observed that the Adarshnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (the actual allottee of Final Plot No. 115) was not impleaded as a party

The court reasoned that the petitioners' challenge to the validity of the Act was a "cloak" intended to obstruct the implementation of a sanctioned Town Planning Scheme. Since the land in question was specifically reserved for a public road under the statutory scheme, the petitioners were deemed mere encroachers of public land

The court found no illegality in the eviction notices or the underlying statutory framework as applied to the facts. All interim reliefs were vacated, and no order as to costs was made