Gujarat High Court rules against Municipal Corporation's revocation of regularisation order, citing lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice.
In a pivotal ruling, the Gujarat High Court has annulled the Municipal Corporation's decision to revoke a previously granted regularisation order concerning unauthorised construction in the Swastik Complex, Ahmedabad. The decision, delivered by Justice Niral R. Mehta, underscores the lack of jurisdiction in the Municipal Corporation's actions and the breach of fundamental principles of natural justice.
The case, titled Unnati Jasmin Shah and others versus Municipal Corporation and another, revolved around the revocation of an order initially passed on October 12, 2015, which regularised unauthorised developments in the Swastik Complex. The municipal authorities had cancelled this regularisation order on March 19, 2018, citing provisions under Section 8(4) of the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011.
The petitioners, led by Unnati Jasmin Shah, argued that the cancellation was executed without proper notice or an opportunity for a hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The court concurred with this argument, noting that the order was passed without notifying the current owners who had legally acquired the property and were directly affected by the revocation.
Furthermore, the court clarified that once a regularisation order is passed under Section 6(3) of the Act after due inquiry and scrutiny, the Designated Authority cannot revoke or cancel it by invoking Section 8(4). The latter section does not confer any independent power of review or recall. The court highlighted that Section 8 merely outlines the parameters for regularisation without providing substantive powers to revisit or review an already granted regularisation order.
Justice Mehta's judgment emphasised that the Act does not envisage any power of review or revision in favour of the Designated Authority after a regularisation order has been passed. The only statutory remedy for an aggrieved applicant under the Act is an appeal against a rejection of regularisation, not a revocation of a granted order.
The court also noted that the municipal authorities' action in cancelling the order was done after an unexplained delay of nearly three years, which further compounded the irregularity of the action.
In conclusion, the court quashed both the impugned order dated March 19, 2018, and the consequential notice dated April 2, 2018, issued under Section 260(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. This ruling reinforces the importance of following statutory provisions and upholding natural justice in administrative actions.
Bottom line:-
Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 - Order of regularisation passed under Section 6(3) cannot be revoked or cancelled by the Designated Authority by invoking Section 8(4) of the Act as the latter does not confer any independent or substantive power of review or recall upon the Authority.
Statutory provision(s):
Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 Sections 6(1), 6(3), 8(4), 8; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 260(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
Unnati Jasmin Shah v. Municipal Corporation, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2928862
