Not inclined to entertain petition: HC as Yusuf Pathan challenges VMC notice

However, a notice was served to Pathan on June 6 — two days after the Lok Sabha election results — by the land estate department of the VMC, informing him that the application was forwarded to the state government for approval in order to lease the land for a period of 99 years under a special case without conducting an auction. The urban development department on June 9, 2014, had rejected the request, and this was communicated to Pathan, the court was told.

Pathan, a former all-rounder, lives in Tandalja area of Vadodara and the plot in question is adjacent to his residence. He won from the Baharampur constituency (in Murshidabad district of West Bengal) in the Lok Sabha polls as the results of which were announced on June 4.

In its notice, the Vadodara civic body pointed out that Pathan continued to encroach upon the land despite the communication. The civic body, in its notice, also instructed Pathan  to clear the encroachment at the earliest. He was given two weeks to clear the encroachment. In 2012, the residential plot was estimated to be worth Rs 5.6 crore.

Following the submissions, Justice Vishen on Thursday orally remarked, “The decision (of the VMC) was never communicated to you (in writing). The copy (of the resolution) was not provided to you. (In such a case) whether it will create any right in your favour? It was an internal decision of the corporation, taken for allotment of the land. Until and unless it is communicated to you, it doesn’t become a decision conferring any right in your favour.”

While Oza alluded to political interference, submitting that the VMC’s encroachment removal notice was served only days after the election results 10 years after the proposal was approved by VMC, Justice Vishen responded that Pathan too did not do anything for 10 years. “After 10 years, perhaps the right is lost and so is the remedy…You show your right otherwise the court is not inclined to entertain this petition,” Justice Vishen went on to add.

Citing provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, particularly with the provisions that deal with disposal of municipal property, Oza argued that once the VMC passes a resolution approving the allotment, the allotment order should have been served to Pathan, and that while VMC chose to go to state government,  “legally they should not have gone”, adding that “law doesn’t require it to be sent to the state government.” Oza admitted that the order of VMC approving the allotment was not served to Pathan.

The court has posted the matter for further hearing on Friday while requesting that the VMC’s panel advocate be informed to remain present before the court.

Related Stories

IndiGo employee alleges caste-based abuse by senior officials; airline ‘strongly refutes’ claims

Test Priyanshu Haldar

‘Attack on Constitution’: After BJP MPs’ comments on judiciary, Congress senses opportunity, plans to corner government

Why so many Indian students — especially from Kashmir — go to Iran for higher education