Dismissed

Laxmiben Wd/O Shri Meghnabhai Sondabhai Bharwad v. Surat Municipal Corporation Thro Municipal Commissioner

Gujarat HC26 Nov 2018LPA/513/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Letters Patent Appeals against an oral order rejecting the petitioners' request to continue their petty business on land reserved for commercial auction. The court found no merit in their submissions as they occupied the land without legal basis.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.

Laxmiben Wd/O Shri Meghnabhai Sondabhai Bharwad Vs Surat… — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/LPA/2398/2017 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2398 of 2017

¶4

In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3467 of 2013 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2017

¶5

With

¶6

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 513 of 2018 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3467 of 2013 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018

¶7

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶8

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶9

== 1	======================================================= Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	= Yes
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

¶10

========================================================== SULTAN FRUIT AGENCY THROUGH PROPREITOR Versus

¶11

SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRO MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 12,16,8,9

¶15

MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1,10,11,13,14,15,17,18,19,2,3,4,5,6,7 MR DP KINARIWALA for the APPELLANTS

¶16

MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI(2578) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

C/LPA/2398/2017 JUDGMENT

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶21

Date : 26/11/2018

¶22

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶25

The challenge in these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is the oral order dated 05.12.2017, passed in Special Civil Application No.3467 of 2013, whereby prayer of the writ petitioners to direct the respondent – Surat Municipal Corporation to allow them to continue with their petty businesses by quashing and setting aside the impugned notices and further to consider their representations came to be rejected.

¶26

It is not in dispute that even before the learned Single Judge, it was fairly conceded by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original petitioners that they were neither the owners nor the legal occupiers of the subject land and that they were small traders carrying on their petty businesses since long time on the plot which was otherwise

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

C/LPA/2398/2017 JUDGMENT

¶29

reserved for saleable commercial purpose.

¶30

Ms.Kruti M.Shah, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that so far as above concession recorded before the learned Single Judge is concerned, no grievance can be made. However, it is submitted that the said plot is reserved for commercial usage, to be auctioned by the respondent – Municipal Corporation and so long as such an auction is taken up by the Corporation, at least the petitioners be allowed to continue with their small businesses of trading activities. It is further submitted that as and when such auction proceedings are initiated, the petitioners may be allowed to participate in the auction and some preference be accorded to them in allotment of shops etc. since they are carrying on their businesses on the plot in question since long.

¶31

It is alternatively submitted by learned counsel for the appellants – original petitioners that the order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in these appeals may not come in the way of the petitioners if remedy under law is available to them based on continuous occupation on the plot on which they are carrying out such petty businesses.

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

C/LPA/2398/2017 JUDGMENT

¶34

Mr.Dhaval Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation would oppose the above request on the ground that no relief can be granted as prayed for since the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the land in question and earlier also, litigation undertaken by them has not yielded any fruitful outcome. Notices under Section 67 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, were issued time and again and served upon the petitioners and therefore, they are bound to vacate the land and hand over peaceful possession of the same to the Corporation. It is submitted that in view of the above, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the record/ petition vis-a-vis the impugned order of the learned Single Judger under challenge, we find as such no merit in either of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as it emerges from record that the petitioners are occupying the subject land without any legal basis. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to the petitioners to participate in auction proceedings, if undertaken by the respondent-Corporation in respect of the subject land so reserved for commercial purposes. Further

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

C/LPA/2398/2017 JUDGMENT

¶38

making it clear that if any remedy under the law exists for the petitioners to invoke their right to livelihood, it will be open for them to pursue such remedy in accordance with law, for which the order of the learned Single Judge shall have no bearing, we dismiss the Letters Patent Appeals with no order as to costs. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated.

¶39

In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals, Civil Applications for stay also stand disposed of.

¶40

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ)

¶41

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶42

sunil

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Laxmiben Wd/O Shri Meghnabhai Sondabhai Bharwad v. Surat Municipal Corporation Thro Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmiben Wd/O Shri Meghnabhai Sondabhai Bharwad v. Surat Municipal Corporation Thro Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Himmatlal Mulani Vs State of Gujarat

Nitaben Jitendrakumar Munjani Vs Punjab National Bank

Dahyabhai Morarbhai Ahir Vs Dalpatbhai Manchhubhai Patel

Vimalba Hathibhai Dhadhal Vs Dena Bank

Devikanandan Gau Seva Trust Vs Surat Municipal Corporation

Dhanjibhai Punjabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat