Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
SPRAT (SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING RATIONALITY) - Appellant
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (AMC) - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13299 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition - Petitioner is a public charitable trust duly registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act, dedicated primarily to promoting rationality and encouraging scientific temper - It is the case of the petitioner that Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority allotted a plot of land - Said allotment of plot was made pursuant to an application of petitioner Trust made to Chairman of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority - Petitioner had by publishing Board, made it very clear that ownership or place was that of AUDA - Case of petitioner is that it was only after a period of almost two years that park land was alloted to petitioner that is beyond period of allotment initially as per letter was for one year – Respondent submit that petitioner was in unauthorized occupation which was established, entering into a Public Private Partnership was a mode to forestall eviction - After sealing of premises, though petitioner had enough time to vacate plot and to remove his goods and belongings, on an oral intimation on previous day, implementaion measures were carried out in presence of staff of petitioner - Though three months’ time was sought to evict and vacate land, orders were implemented only sixteen months and there is nothing wrong in action so carried out by Corporation - Held, From the eviction notices, it is evident that case of Corporation is that final plot is reserved for gardens - Court cannot shut its eye to documents placed on record which would indicate that it was being used for purposes of garden and other recreational activities as it is evident from photographs and communications on record - These facts are not facts which would deter Court from not exercising its right under Article 226 under guise of it being a disputed question of fact -In context of prayers that it was meted out shabby treatment in terms of carrying out large scale demolition of property and causing loss to tune of several crores of rupees is a question which would require a detailed fact finding inquiry and leading of evidence - In event Corporation still wants to use same for a public garden as it is so made out in affidavit-in-reply and in event petitioner is willing to enter into a Public Private Partnership, parties can enter into such an agreement for carrying out purposes for which plot is reserved - As far as legality of eviction and manner in which it was carried out, it is evident that timeline was sought for vacating of premises which Corporation had not granted, or may be could not get same vacated for over a period of sixteen months because of pandemic - However, that it suddenly swung into action as a State machinery and demolished large scale structures causing damage to property of petitioner was unwarranted - Fact that petitioner had to vacate as Society was over staying its tenure is evident, but manner of eviction was unfair - Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Society for Promoting Rationality (‘SPRAT’ for short) for the following reliefs:
The petitioner, terribly harmed by unimaginably unjust acts of a State entity and faced with an existentialist crisis – respectfully prays for judicial affirmation of the Petitioner’s lawful and responsible conduct and exemplary justice, through the following prayers. This prayer excludes the claims for damages mentioned in paragraph 147.
May this Hon Court, and the greatest temple of justice in Gujarat, be pleased to grant the following prayers.
158. Taking into consideration the facts, submissions and grounds furnished in this petition, and such others as may be urged at the hearing, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order allowing this petition and
A. Declaring the Respondent Corporation’s following actions in respect of Muskaan Park built by the petitioner at mouje Vejalpur under TP Scheme No. 1, FP No. 220, as illegal and violative of the Constitution of India:
i. Inaction on PPP agreement
ii. Issue of notices of eviction and removal of assets
iii. Sealing the Park and keeping it sealed for 16 long months thus preventing it from removing its assets
iv. Denying the reasonable time, the Petitioner sought to vacate the land
v. The act of demolishing the Park
vi. Destroying the reusability of the Petitioner’s assets and failing to preserve the demolished goods safely.
Vii. Not allowing the Petitioner to collect its valuables during demolition.
B. Kindly Ordering RESTORATION of the Status Quo Ante as on the date of Sealing the Park, viz, 25th Feb, 2020, and towards achieving that end, also:
i. Directing the Respondent to reallot the said land to the Petitioner for a term of 10 or more years to run the Park.
ii. Directing the Respondent to build similar structures and to supply similar or like goods as the ones the Respondent illegally demolished and destroyed, or in the alternative, to pay to the Petitioner the sum of Rs. 75 lakh, so that the Petitioner may rebuild the structure and acquire the goods that were destroyed to run the Park.
iii. Directing the Respondent to supply to the Petitioner, the facilities normally required to run a Park, including water, electricity, cleaning etc in the interest of public service.
iv. Declaring the further proceedings and transactions that the Respondent may have undertaken, if any, in respect of, or about the said land, with anyone else, subsequent to the act of illegal demolition, as ultra vires and null and void.
C. Alternatively, Your Lordships may be pleased to kindly award to the Petitioner NGO, a compensation of Rs.171 Lakh [Rupees One Hundred Seventy One Lakh only] in the nature of exemplary damages.
D. Kindly ordering an independent probe in the conduct of the officials responsible for the acts determined as illegal and to take appropriate legal action stipulated against them, and to reporty action taken.
E. Kindly ordering the Respondent to issue a public apoloty for maligning the Petitioner or its officers in public, clearly absolving them of any wrong-doing.
F. Kindly issuing an order restraining the Respondent from intimidating or harassing the Petitioner, its trustees and officers, in any way.
G. Kindly awarding Rs.2 (two) lakh towards the costs to the Petitioner.
H. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition kindly issuing an interim order:
i. Directing the Respondent to maintain status quo relating to the said plot of land of 2,500 Sq.Mtr, at FP No. 220/3 under TP Scheme No. 1 at Vejalpur, as on the date of sealing the Park.
ii. Kindly ordering the Respondent to supply to the Petitioner a copy of the inventory of the Petitioner’s assets, along with the photographs and video recording, as obtaining before demolition.
iii. Directing the Respondent to return all the goods of the Petitioner, from AMC go-down and from the Park site, and t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
