Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/6/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 6 of 2010
=========================================
BABULAL
NATHALAL & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJKOT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
Ms. VINITA VINAYAK for M/s.THAKKAR
ASSOC. for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR RM CHHAYA for Defendant(s) :
1,
None for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 19/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been preferred by the
appellants herein who are the original plaintiffs challenging the
impugned order and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.),
Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 703/87 and confirmed by the judgment
and decree dated 21.7.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District
Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/2001.
2. Heard
learned advocate Ms. Vinita Vinayak for M/s. Thakkar Associates for
the appellants and learned counsel Mr. R.M. Chhaya for respondent No.
1, original defendant.
3. Pursuant
to the notice issued, learned counsel Mr. Chhaya has submitted that
respondent No.1-Rajkot Municipal Corporation has evolved a scheme
with regard to providing space in the hawking plots to enable persons
like appellant Nos. 1 to 3 to earn their livelihood as a social
measure.
4. Learned
Counsel Mr. Chhaya has also stated that earlier the High Court in
Second Appeal No. 61 of 2010 has passed an order dated 29.3.2010 in
an identical situation and the same order could be passed when the
Corporation is willing to give space in the hawking plots as per the
scheme evolved by the Corporation in the city of Rajkot.
5. However,
he has clarified that this is subject to completing the formalities
and procedure as well as the conditions of the scheme for which
necessary application may be made by appellant Nos. 1 to 3. He
submitted that it may be clarified that this would be applicable and
confined to appellant Nos. 1 to 3 only and appellant No. 4 has died.
6. Learned
advocate Ms. Vinayak for the appellants has no objection. She has
stated that her clients, appellant Nos. 1 to 3, would complete the
necessary formalities and comply with the requirements for allotment
of such space in the hawking plots subject to fulfillment of the
conditions.
7. Learned
advocate Ms. Vinayak has stated that the cabin/stall in question is
in the public street and the appellants-original plaintiffs shall
hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said cabin/stall
occupied by them within a period of 15 days. She has also stated
that handing over peaceful and vacant possession of the cabin/stall
in question is without waiting for the alternative space being
allotted in the hawking plots. She has also stated that the
appellants shall submit the formal application to the Corporation for
allotment of the space in the hawking plots which will be considered
as stated above.
8. The
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties have requested
to dispose of this second appeal in terms of the above statement.
9. In
view of the above understanding arrived at, the present appeal hereby
stands disposed of. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3, original plaintiffs,
are directed to act as per the statement made by learned advocate Ms.
Vinayak for the appellants and shall make necessary application as
required under the scheme and shall also comply with the terms and
conditions of the scheme subject to which space in the hawking plots
could be allotted to them. If such application is made within 10
days, the same will be considered by the respondent No.1 corporation
within a period of one month thereafter.
10. It
will be open for the respondent Corporation to seek any further
clarification for the purpose of such allotment of space in the
hawking plots and the entire exercise would be completed as early as
possible. However, it is made clear that the allotment of the
aforesaid space in the hawking plots to appellant Nos. 1 to 3 is made
in the facts and circumstances without prejudice to the rights and
also without being cited as a precedent.
11. In
view of the above, the present second appeal stands disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
(hn)
Top