The Gujarat High Court directed the Designated Authority to initiate suo moto proceedings against all erring persons (Private Respondents) in the matter of constructions raised by them within the jurisdiction of the Designated Authority namely Taluka Vapi, District Valsad.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for making a roving inquiry into the matter of alleged unauthorized constructions in the entire state of Gujarat.
The Bench noted that factual inquiry has been conducted by the District Collector in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Court, wherein Collector was asked to verify as to whether permission to construct was taken or not; completion certificate building use permission has been granted or not; permission as per fire safety norms has been taken from the competent authority or not; and further if the construction are irregular and/or illegal, what steps have been taken by the competent authority. The Bench further record the facts noted in the order dated 05.04.2021 that the District Town Planner, Valsad has produced a report along with the photographs, signed by five officers namely Town Planner, Junior Town Planner, Planning Assistant and Two Surveyors.
In the affidavits of the Collector dated 03.07.2021 and 22.07.2021, answer to the queries made by the Court in the order dated 21.06.2021 is sought to be given with the assertion that a Committee was constituted by the Collector to make an inquiry into the matter, comprising of Deputy Collector, Pardi, Deputy District Development Officer and other Officers which had submitted its report on 16.07.2021. On receipt of the said report, further instructions have been given to the Committee to do the needful. Attention of the Court is invited to the report dated 20.07.2021, sent by the Collector to the Government Pleader in the matter of inquiry conducted by the Committee verified by the Collector.
On perusal of the said communication which contains answer to four questions framed by the Court in the order dated 21.06.2021, the Bench noted that there has been instances of unauthorized constructions raised by the private respondents. The report of the Committee on all four issues about the permission being granted by the competent authority, fire safety permission and action taken by the competent authority etc. shows that apart from one namely Avenue Supermarkets Limited, all other respondents have raised constructions without proper permission of the competent authority or they have violated the terms and conditions of the permission for raising construction.
The attention of the Court is further invited to the provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2022 , which was enforced in furtherance of the Gujarat Ordinance No. 3 of 2022 with effect from 17.10.2022. The said Ordinance has been promulgated to regularize unauthorized development in the Municipal areas, Nagarpalika areas and Development areas in the State and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
“A massive exercise is, thus, to be conducted by the Designated Authority to identify the unauthorized constructions raised by the Private Respondents as alleged in the petition and further to ascertain and adjudicate as to whether such unauthorized construction can be regularized in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2022.”
For the development which has taken place during the pendency of this petition with the promulgation of Gujarat Ordinance of 2022, which became the Act with effect from 17.10.2022, the Bench opined that the inquiry which has been initiated by this Court cannot continue in the manner as agitated by the petitioner herein. However, the Court cannot permit the unauthorized constructions to remain on the spot and leave the private respondent to use the same unabated without getting them regularized in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2022, as it has been categorically reported in the affidavits of the Collector as noted hereinabove that no proper building use permission has been taken from the competent authority at the relevant point of time.
“The Designated Authority, whosoever it may be within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b), shall be required to issue notice to the owners and occupiers of the buildings-inquestion with respect to which report of unauthorized construction raised by respondent Nos. 13 to 28 has been submitted to us. The owners and occupiers of the buildingsin-question shall be at liberty to raise their objections to the notices before the Designated Authority.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner who is a complainant, shall also have a right of hearing in the matter of decision taken by the Designated Authority for regularization of unauthorized constructions raised by the private respondents, however, he is being cautioned not to make any efforts to stall the proceedings conducted by the Designated Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Regularization Act, 2022. In any case, all such proceedings are to be initiated by the Designated Authority by identifying the constructions raised by the respondent Nos. 13 to 28 and issuing notices to them within a period of one month from today. The notices issued to erring persons namely owners or occupiers of the buildings-in-question shall be duly replied by them within a further period of one month. The inquiry into the matter of unauthorized constructions and the regularization thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Regularization Act, 2022 shall be undertaken and completed within a further period of six months, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, 2022, which came into being with effect from 17.10.2022. All persons interested in the construction-inquestion namely all owners and occupiers of the buildings-inquestion shall be given due opportunity of hearing with the caution that no one would be entitled to stall the proceedings by taking unnecessary adjournment. In case, there is no reply to the notice issued to such owners or occupiers by the Designated Authority, it would be open for the Designated Authority to proceed in their absence and pass reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law , the Bench directed.
It is further clarified by the Court that the petitioner who has filed the Public Interest Litigation would not fall within the meaning of “aggrieved person” for the purpose of filing appeal against the order passed by the Designated Authority under Section 12, inasmuch as, the petitioner can only fall in the category of a whistle-blower at whose instance the proceedings are being initiated against the erring persons.
With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of by the Bench and before parting with this order, it is clarified by the Court that in case of any inaction on the part of the Designated Authority or any violation of the directions contained , it would be open for the petitioner herein namely the Public Interest Litigant to approach the Court again.
All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. This order be circulated by the office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat to the Collector, Valsad for onward transmission to the Designated Authority under the Regularization Act, 2022, for compliance of the above directions. The Collector, Valsad shall be further obliged to send the report of compliance to the learned Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat , the Court further directed.