The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not permit detailed fact-finding inquiries and leading of evidence, and therefore, the court reserved the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for seeking damages.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. These intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment passed in Special Civil Application No. 13299 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021 disposing of the petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for damages for the action that corporation had caused and imposing a token cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the corporation in favour of the petitioner.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

2. Petitioner which is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act filed Special Civil Application No. 13297 of 2021 essentially questioning the action of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (‘AMC’ for short) who had sealed the park established by the petitioner and demolished certain structures existing in the park on the ground of same being illegal.

3. AMC who had appeared on service of notice had filed the reply statement denying the averments made in the writ application except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder and contending, inter-alia, that petitioner was granted permission to use the land/plot measuring 50 x 50 sq. mtrs. at Mouje Vejalpur in Final Plot No. 220 of T.P. Scheme No. 1 with a condition that no permanent structure can be put up on the said plot and same has to be used by the people of all communities for carrying out extra co-curricular activities, sports, exercise and cultural activity and said permissive use granted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (For short ‘AUDA’) was for a period of one year and no right vested with the petitioner to use the said land unilaterally and as such the petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that petitioner with an intention to promote the activity of recreation, etc. had requested the then AUDA within whose jurisdiction the plot fell for allotment, had resulted in a communication dated 5.1.2004 being forwarded by AUDA to the petitioner which was followed by communication dated 29.9.2004 clearly indicating thereunder that petitioner society would not be in a position to carry out any civil or permanent construction over the land permitted to be used but utilise the plot only for extra curriculum activity for a period of one year. The learned Single Judge also noticed that from time to time funds were provided by various agencies including the grant from the Member of Parliament for the setting up of infrastructural facilities, water supply, electricity connection and water connection and records disclose that despite there being an offer by the successor in the case of AUDA namely AMC offering the petitioner the public private participation for which the consent had also been given by the petitioner on being asked by AMC and thereafter eviction notice had been issued by AMC calling upon the petitioner to vacate and handover possession, which had not been complied by the petitioner and as such time sought for by the petitioner to vacate the park not having been granted, it resulted in notice dated 25.2.2020 being issued to the petitioner to seal the park and time sought for by petitioner was not granted. As a result of this, park came to be sealed on 26.2.2020 and as such learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that prima facie the nature of the prayers made in the petition would indicate that act of demolition carrying away the property located in the park was for award of damages and restoration of the property which requires detailed fact-finding inquiry and leading of evidence being impermissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reserved right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for seeking damages. Hence, the petition came to be disposed of by arriving at a conclusion that award of Rs. 25,000/- as costs to petitioner on the ground that petitioner organisation which had been remained in possession of the disputed property for over a period of long years, deserved better treatment and on acco