JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner challenges the proposed action to be taken by the respondents in removing/evicting the petitioners from the place of their business.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has mainly submitted that the petitioners are carrying on their business activities at Kadi town. The Standing Committee of the Kadi Municipality has resolved vide Resolution No. 84 dated 24.2.1976 that the petitioners are offered land at the rent of Rs. 5/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are having electricity connection given by Gujarat Electricity Board and they are paying electricity bills regularly. Similarly, the petitioners of these petitions are also paying tax to Kadi Municipality. The receipts for payment of municipal tax have been annexed with the memo of the petitions. Similarly, electricity bills have also annexed. However, the petitioners have come to know from the reliable sources that the District Collector, Mahesana has directed the Chief Officer of Kadi Municipality vide communications dated 3rd January, 2004 and 13th January, 2004 to remove all the constructions of the petitioners and of similarly situated other persons. The action of removing structures of the petitioners may commence at any time and therefore, the respondents may be restrained by issuance of writ of this court from removing/evicting the petitioners from the places of their business and they may be heard before taking any action against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply of the Authorised Officer of Kadi Municipality, whereby it is submitted that neither payment of tax nor payment of electricity connection makes construction of the petitioners authorised, if they are otherwise unauthorised. It is also further submitted by the respondent no. 2 that for widening of the road, the land occupied by the petitioner is necessary and hence unauthorised construction and occupation of the land by the petitioner will have to be removed. The internal correspondence between Municipality and Collector can never be the basis for issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be invoked by this Court.
4. Considering the rival contentions of both the sides and the nature of submissions made in the memo of petition and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, one fact is established that the petitioners are occupying the construction on the land since quite long time. It is also established that as a proof of occupancy of the said premises, the petitioners have annexed the electricity bills which they are paying regularly. No doubt, it is a fact emerging from the record of the case that Kadi Municipality i.e. respondent no. 2, is imposing tax and the same is being paid by the petitioners. Even quadrennial assessment which the municipality is doing at the interval of every four years, has also been done of the premises of the petitioners. We are of the opinion that merely because the petitioners are in occupation of the premises, with or without superstructure thereon for a long time, with or without knowledge of the concerned authorities and the payment of taxes collected by the respondents and the internal correspondence between the authorities, legally cannot create any right or title on the lands of the respondents authorities. Even otherwise also, a question of right for establishment of title based on disputed questions of fact, could not be investigated in Constitutional writ jurisdiction.
5. Notwithstanding and despite, any establishment of rights or title in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioners, it will be just and reasonable to grant some time for vacating the land and removing the superstructure thereon made by the petitioners, which are not obstructing the road or falling on the road side and therefore, time to vacate or remove the unauthorised construction and the land till 2.10.2004 will meet with ends of justice. We also make it again clear that the unauthorised construction falling on the road or obstructing the public on the road shall be removed immediately and it will be also open for the respondents authorities to take appropriate actions in accordance with law.
6. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the aforesaid observations, all these petitions shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Obviously, interim relief would not survive and it shall stand vacated.