Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16040/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16040 of 2010
=========================================================
CHANDRAPRAKASH
NARAYANBHAI DAVE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
LAXMANZULA
COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & 4 - Respondent(s)
========================================================
Appearance
:
MR PS
CHAMPANERI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR VL THAKKAR for Respondent(s) : 1, 5,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates appearing for the parties.
The
petitioner has approached this Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order
dated 30.11.2010, dismissing
application exhibit 6 in Revision Application No.56 of 2010
and confirming the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Board of
Nominees in Lavad Case No.817 of 2008, whereby the status-quo order
came to be vacated.
The
facts in brief leading to filing of this petition need to be set out
as under.
The
petitioner has averred in the memo of petition that he is a member
of the respondent no.1 Cooperative Housing Society and he possesses
tenement No. B/110 in the said society. As the said tenement was
requiring repairing and renovation, the petitioner had with oral
consent of the office bearers of the respondent no.1 society
undertook renovation of the said tenement. The construction was
required to be regularized and hence the fees for regularization was
deposited on 06.12.2003. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 had preferred
Lavad Suit being Lavad Suit No.1356 of 1998 before the Board of
Nominees for removal of the additional construction which is not in
accordance with law. The said suit was decreed in favour of the
respondents on 14.02.2002 and the said suit was decreed ex-parte,
therefore, the petitioner did not have knowledge of the decree
against him. The petitioner came to know about the Lavad Suit being
Lavad Suit No.1356 of 1998 decreed against him, when the notice of
Darkhast came to be served upon him. The Darkhast was filed by the
Society for implementing the order and decree made in Lavad Suit
No.1356 of 1998. The said notice was said to have been served upon
him in the year 2004 in the said Darkhast filed being
Darkhast No.77 of 2004 which is pending. The petitioner,
therefore, filed Lavad Suit No.817 of 2008 and obtained status-quo
order. The said order came to be vacated on 12.03.2010. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner preferred
Revision Application being Revision Application No.56 of 2010,
wherein the Court passed order confirming the said order of vacating
the status-quo which is challenged by way of this petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The
petitioner has contended that the suit is pending and vacation of
the status quo would amount to implementing the order passed in
Lavad Suit, as the Darkhast would proceed in its entirety. The
Court is unable to appreciate the submission as both the Courts,
while vacating the status-quo, has clearly observed that the
construction is absolutely illegal and there is no iota of evidence
coming forward on record to indicate that the said construction was
put up after getting permission to construct the same. When the
construction itself was illegal, there cannot be any perpetuity by
the Court’s order. Therefore, the order impugned in my view, does
not suffer from the infirmity so as to call for any interference.
Hence, the same is bereft of merits. The petition is accordingly
rejected. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief stands vacated.
No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
Pankaj
Top