Gujarat High Court High Court

Pervin vs Municipal on 6 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Pervin vs Municipal on 6 April, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9636/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9636 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 16312 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9636 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6216 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9636 of 2009
 

 
=================================================


 

PERVIN
AKHTAR A PATHAN - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

MUNICIPAL
COMMISSIONER & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
BOMI H SETHNA for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4. 
MR
SN MODH for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4. 
MR MC BHATT SR. COUNSEL WITH MR
VIKRAM J THAKOR for Respondent(s) :
5, 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

Date
: 14/03/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
submits that the illegal encroachments made by the occupiers have
been removed. It has come to the notice of the Corporation that
there are 439 unauthorized occupants of different premises in the
area, notices have been issued under the Gujarat Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred
to as `the Act’), and after receipt of the replies Corporation will
pass orders immediately with respect to 30 cases and rest of the
cases are under consideration. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the 5th respondent submits that the construction in question was
leased in favour of one or other persons, who subsequently sold the
property in favour of some other persons. He submits that the Act is
not applicable and only by way of filing a civil suit they can be
evicted.

Having
heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that in
a Public Interest Litigation this Court has jurisdiction to pass
order to evict the unauthorized occupants of one or other premises of
the Corporation, if unauthorizedly occupied by one or other party.
In the circumstances, we direct the Corporation to give notices to
such occupants and pass appropriate order, if illegal occupation by
one or the other premises is detected. It will be open to the
parties to bring to the notice of the Corporation that they are
validly occupying the premises. It will also be open to one or other
party to get their sale regularized by requesting the Corporation.

We
make it clear that if any order of eviction is passed, the
Corporation will give reference of the order passed by this Court in
the present case (Public Interest Litigation). In such case, it will
be open to the aggrieved persons to move before this Court against
such order. This order is being passed with a view to ensure that
this Court’s order passed in the Public Interest Litigation is not
stalled by anyone or other authority or subordinate court of law.
Post the matter on 26th April 2011.

(S.J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

[sn
devu] pps

   

Top