Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/114/2003 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 114 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
ISHAKBHAI
ALLABUX ALLAHAWALA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHOK K PADIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR MG
NAGARKAR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MAULIN R RAVAL for
Respondent(s) : 1,
Mr.NIRAG
PATHAK, ASST GOVT PLEADER for respondent
no.3-State.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 14/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
present petition is filed by one Shri Ishakbhai Allabux Allahwala
describing himself to be the President of Ahmedabad Gujari
Association, having its office near Victoria Garden, adjacent to
Mahalaxmi Temple, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has challenged order
passed by the Competent Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(AMC) in C.O.P. Case No.52 of 1979 and the order of the learned
Judge, City Civil Court No.16, Ahmedabad in Eviction Appeal No.16 of
1998 dated 22.11.2002. Learned advocate Mr.Padia vehemently
submitted that the orders are illegal and without any force of law.
He submitted that the competent authority of AMC had no authority to
pass any order in C.O.P. Case No.52 of 1979, a copy of which is
produced at Annexure ‘B’ to this petition. Learned advocate Mr.Padia
submitted that the petitioner is having a rival claim with the
Corporation and therefore, if at all anybody had power to pass any
order against the petitioner, it is the State Government.
The
learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to
the order impugned, viz. order dated 17.01.1998 by the competent
officer, AMC which was the subject matter of the challenge in
Eviction Appeal No.16 of 1998, which came to be decided by the
learned learned Judge, City Civil Court No.16, Ahmedabad by judgement
and order dated 22.11.2002, wherein the learned Judge has taken pains
to record reasons for rejecting that appeal. Learned advocate
Mr.Padia could not dislodge the reasons recorded by the learned
learned Judge, City Civil Court No.16, Ahmedabad. Learned advocate
Mr.Padia submitted that deposition of one Smt.Urmilaben Kantilal
Shah, who was serving as Permit Inspector with AMC is in favour of
the petitioner. The learned advocate invited attention of the Court
to the relevant part of the said deposition, a copy of which is
produced at Annexure ‘E’ to this petition. As against that learned
Assistant Government Pleader, Mr.Pathak submitted that as is
mentioned by the said witness, the land in question was given to the
Municipal Corporation after heavy floods of 1973, in lieu of the land
of the Corporation which was required and hence taken to rehabilitate
the hutment dwellers on the banks of river Sabarmati. He submitted
that the land situated at Village Gyaspur admeasuring 39 acres, 9
gunthas was given by the Corporation to the State Government and in
lieu thereof the State Government had given the land in question to
the Municipal Corporation. He also invited attention of the Court to
letter dated 22.10.1973 bearing No.LMN/ 1673/ 11/ 13/ 93/A of the
Revenue Department. He also invited attention of the Court to other
relevant part of the deposition of the Permit Inspector wherein she
has stated that possession of the land in question was handed over to
the AMC and possession receipt, which was signed by the Deputy
Mamlatdar on behalf of the State Government and the Deputy Estate
Officer on behalf of the Municipal Corporation was produced.
2. Learned
AGP invited attention of the Court to the evidence of the said
officer, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the Municipal
Corporation by Resolution No.874 dated 8th July 1974 had
given this land to have Gujari Bazar from 1.8.70 to 31.7.75, but that
was on certain conditions and those conditions can be found in the
letter of the District Collector dated 03.10.1970. The learned AGP
also invited attention of the Court to the said evidence, wherein it
is specifically mentioned that there is no contract between the
plaintiff on one hand and the AMC on the other. He submitted that on
the contrary the land in question was to be used by the Municipal
Corporation for constructing office building and resolution to that
effect was passed on 26.12.1978 being Resolution No.949. It is
emphatically submitted by the learned AGP that it is specifically
brought out in the said evidence that the present petitioner has no
right whatsoever much less any legal right on the land in question.
3. Learned
advocate Mr.Padia submitted that the petitioner could have been
evicted from the land in question on which, the petitioner was
permitted to have Gujari Bazar once a week, only by the Collector.
He submitted that sections 60 and 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code
were required to be taken into consideration by the State Government
for getting the present petitioner evicted from the land.
4. The
submissions made by the learned advocate are found to be without any
substance and hence the petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top