HC dismisses pleas against Hansol town planning scheme
Ahmedabad: The
Gujarat high court
dismissed five petitions objecting to the preliminary
Town Planning Scheme 67
in Hansol and the laying down of roads within it. The HC stated, "In view of the ongoing rapid development in the city and the consequential increase in vehicular traffic, which necessitates an adequate and well-planned road infrastructure."
This decision may pave the way for laying roads connecting the
airport-Dafnala road
with the proposed extension of the riverfront on the eastern side of the river. The five petitioners are landholders in the Hansol area, situated between the Cantonment and the Sabarmati. They filed petitions objecting to the preliminary TP Scheme, citing various concerns related to the final allotment of plots and the reservation of plots for people belonging to the economically weaker section. The petitioners uniformly challenged the proposed 24m, 30m, 18m and 12m TP roads on the grounds that such roads are either not needed or affect the immovable properties of the petitioners.
You Can Also Check:
Ahmedabad AQI
|
Weather in Ahmedabad
|
Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad
|
Public Holidays in Ahmedabad
While the petitioners raised various contentions, one of them argued that the revised plan sanctioned by the govt in 2014 included a 24m wide road. However, it was not implemented due to objections from the Army Cantonment authority because there are sensitive installations like the army ammunition dump, military target area, and butchery situated along the planned road. However, the HC stated, "In the absence of the Army Cantonment before this Court and not being a party in the captioned proceedings, it would not be prudent for this Court to express any opinion."
While dismissing the petitions, Justice Sangeeta Vishen said, "If such objections were to be considered, it would result in a scenario wherein, within the preliminary TP scheme covering an area of 11,82,000 sq m, no roads would be available. Such an outcome is untenable, especially in view of the ongoing rapid development in the city and the consequential increase in vehicular traffic, which necessitates an adequate and well-planned road infrastructure."
Additionally, one Riverfront Development Company approached the HC in 2021, seeking the implementation of the preliminary TP scheme 67. As the HC stayed the implementation of the TP scheme in 2022, it has extended the stay for eight more weeks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Calcutta HC stays payouts to sacked group-C, D staff
The Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the West Bengal government not to pay monthly allowance to the Group-C and Group-D categories of employees, who lost their jobs following a Supreme Court verdict in April, along with the SSC teachers. Recently, the Trinamool government announced a monthly allowance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 25,00 for Group-C and Group-D categories respectively under a new scheme 'West Bengal Livelihood and Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025' early this month. Justice Amrita Sinha , who was hearing the case today, asked the state's Advocate General Kishore Dutta, whether the Group-C and D employees, who will get the allowance under the 'West Bengal Livelihood and Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025' will do some work or will get the allowance, sitting at home. Dutta, however, stated the matter included in the scheme. "This money is allocated from a special fund, Dutta added. Justice Sinha asked on what basis the allowance was determined and how many employees will get this money? In which cases was such financial assistance given in the past?"
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana high court to take up bail plea of mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy today
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court will on Tuesday decide the bail plea of mining baron and Karnataka MLA Gali Janardhan Reddy who was sentenced to seven years along with three others in the illegal Obulapuram mining case recently. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On Monday, Justice K Lakshman heard arguments in the bail petitions of Gali, Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) MD BV Srinivas Reddy and two others, and reserved his orders for Tuesday. Senior counsel S Nagamuthu argued the case of Gali and urged the court to suspend the sentence and release him on bail. While Srinivas Reddy's counsel Pappu Nageswara Rao, citing judgments of the Supreme Court, said that convicts who have served half of their term could be released on bail. In the current case, both Gali and Srinivas Reddy have served more than three and a half years of jail term as remand prisoners prior to their conviction. The lawyers said the case entrusted to CBI was about alleged illegal mining beyond leasehold areas and transgression of state borders, which finds no mention in its charge sheet, while the case against them was about violation of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act – which was not dealt with by the probe agency. They also pointed out that when those named as principal offenders – former mines minister Sabita Indra Reddy and former industries secretary Kripanandam – were acquitted, how can those charged with conspiracy be convicted? Opposing the bail pleas, CBI counsel Srinivas Kapatia said the convicts could not show any compelling circumstance that warrants interference by the court. The judge said he would only look at the bail pleas for now and made it clear that their main appeals will be heard from Aug 11. HC to take up Srilakshmi acquittal issue The judge, during the hearing, directed the registry to list before him the case of former industries secretary Y Srilakshmi (who succeeded Kripanandam). The high court had earlier discharged her from the case, but CBI had appealed in SC which directed the HC to hear the CBI version also before arriving at a conclusion. CBI made out a case that the HC had not heard their version before allowing Srilakshmi's plea. The judge said he would decide the issue before the expiry of a three-month deadline fixed by the apex court and directed the CBI to file its counter.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
The Curious Case of Removal Of 2 Judges And Routes Adopted
New Delhi: The process to remove judges is not initiated often in the country - taking place only five times since Independence. But in recent times, the process has been started for two judges - both from the Allahabad High Court -- within months of each other. But the progress of the two cases appear to vary widely, with one being conducted by the Rajya Sabha and the other being an internal process of the judiciary. In December last year, Justice Shekhar Yadav was accused of giving a hate speech while in March, burnt cash was found in the house of Justice Yashwant Varma. The in-house procedure against Justice Verma is expected to be wrapped up in the coming monsoon session of Parliament. But the fate of Justice Shekhar Yadav is not yet decided. The cases highlight the procedural complexities involved in holding High Court judges accountable in India. While Justice Yadav's matter is locked within Parliament's jurisdiction, Justice Varma's case progressed swiftly under the judiciary's internal mechanisms. How Parliamentary Procedure Blocked Internal Probe The objectionable speech of Justice Yadav was made at an event of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on December 8. Days later, on December 13, 55 MPs led by senior lawyer and MP Kapil Sibal had submitted a proposal for his removal to the Rajya Sabha Speaker. The prompt action barred the way for the Supreme Court to begin any in-house procedure against the judge. In March, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat wrote to the Supreme Court's Secretary General about Justice Yadav, formally starting the process of the Judges Inquiry Act. Under this, the Rajya Sabha Chairman has to form a three-member inquiry panel. This would include the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of the High Court and an "eminent jurist", who will investigate the grounds on which the removal of the concerned judge has been sought. After this the committee will frame charges against the concerned judge, who will be allowed to respond within a specified time. The Supreme Court had also moved parallelly on the matter. On December 17, the collegium headed by then Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna --comprising the seniormost judges, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A S Oka -- had taken note of news reports about Justice Yadav's December 8 speech. On December 10, they sought a report from the High Court, tasking it with investigating the issue. Justice Yadav appeared before the Collegium in the Supreme Court on December 17 and offered to explain the purpose, meaning and context of his speech. He contended that the media had selectively quoted from his speech to create unnecessary controversy. But the Collegium did not agree and reprimanded him over certain of his statements. The Collegium told him that being in a constitutional position, the conduct of an judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court is under constant scrutiny and he is expected to maintain the dignity of his office. The matter then lost momentum and on February 13, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar clarified that only Parliament has the right to remove a High Court judge constitutionally, as the notice for removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav is pending with him. The Rajya Sabha chairman had earlier submitted the removal motion, and the Collegium realised that they did not have an internal investigation process available to them since the matter was already under consideration of the Rajya Sabha chairman. Burnt Cash at Justice Yashwant Varma's Residence Sparked In-House Action Justice Yashwant Varma had come under scrutiny after a fire broke out at his official residence on March 14 and wads of half-burnt cash was found. This time, though, there was no involvement of MPs. In absence of a parliamentary motion, then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and appointed a three-judge panel to conduct an investigation. The committee confirmed the presence of cash at Justice Varma's residence and submitted its report to the CJI. Soon after, Justice Khanna sent the findings to the Prime Minister and the President, recommending initiation of removal proceedings as per the Judges Inquiry Act and Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The government has indicated that it may table the motion for Justice Varma's removal during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament.
