Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Umesh A. Trivedi, J.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Akruti TCG Bio-Tech Limited – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 20198 & 20033 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Article 227 - Land Dispute - Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 - Section 4(1), Section 5(1), Section 5(2), Section 9 - The court rejected the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising from an order passed below Exhs.13 and 14, which restrained the respondent from proceeding with the hearing of the stay application prior to the application of condonation of delay being heard and decided. The court found that the petitioners attempted to overreach the process of the court and ordered them to pay a cost of Rs.5000 to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioners for the development of an industrial park on a piece of land. The petitioners issued an order of eviction against the respondent under Section 5(1) of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. The respondent failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time and filed a delay condonation application along with a stay application. The petitioners sought time and assured the court that they would maintain status-quo of the disputed property until the next date of hearing. However, they later raised their hands from continuing such assurance, leading to a series of applications and orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners attempted to overreach the process of the court and ordered them to pay a cost of Rs.5000 to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. The court rejected the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising from an order passed below Exhs.13 and 14, which restrained the respondent from proceeding with the hearing of the stay application prior to the application of condonation of delay being heard and decided.
Issues: The main issue was the attempt by the petitioners to overreach the process of the court by raising their hands from their assurance to maintain status-quo of the disputed property, leading to a series of applications and orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' attempt to overreach the process of the court was unethical and condemned their actions. The court also found that the petitioners' actions were an attempt to frustrate the statutory right of appeal to an aggrieved person.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and ordered the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.5000 to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The court emphasized that attempts to overreach the judicial process and frustrate the statutory right of appeal by an aggrieved party will not be tolerated (!) (!) .
The case involved a dispute over eviction under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, where the respondent had entered into an agreement for land development and faced eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner (!) (!) .
The petitioners issued an eviction order under the relevant section of the GPP Act, which the respondent failed to appeal within the prescribed time, but filed an application for condonation of delay along with a stay application (!) (!) .
The court noted that the petitioners attempted to overreach the process by raising their hands from their assurance to maintain status-quo and later taking actions that appeared to undermine the respondent’s statutory right of appeal (!) (!) .
The court rejected the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, finding that the petitioners’ actions were unethical and an attempt to frustrate the statutory appeal process (!) (!) .
It was observed that despite the respondent filing an appeal and seeking stay, the petitioners hurriedly took possession of the property, claiming the appeal had become infructuous, which the court condemned as high-handed and unethical conduct (!) (!) .
The court held that the exercise of powers under the relevant section of the GPP Act by the petitioners’ officers, especially when such actions are challenged before a judicial authority, was improper and lacked jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the statutory appeal process, including the power to stay proceedings, remains valid even if the appeal is filed with a delay, provided the court is satisfied of sufficient cause (!) (!) .
It was clarified that the provisions of the civil procedure code regarding appeals and stay orders are directory, not mandatory, and do not bar courts from exercising jurisdiction to grant interim relief or stay even before the delay is condoned (!) (!) .
The court condemned the petitioners’ conduct of attempting to overreach judicial procedures, including taking possession prematurely and declaring the appeal infructuous, and ordered them to pay costs for their unethical approach (!) .
Overall, the court reinforced that judicial processes and statutory rights of appeal must be respected, and any attempt to bypass or frustrate these rights will be met with strict consequences, including costs (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
1. Both these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the order passed below Exhs.13 and 14 whereby an application made by the petitioners seeking restraint order against respondent – original applicant before the appellate Court proceeding with the hearing of the stay application prior to an application of condonation of delay be heard as also an application made requesting to grant time of four weeks to file Appeal before higher forum against the order passed below Exh.13, which came to be though granted but with the conditional order directing the petitioners to maintain status-quo of the disputed property as referred in paragraph 6(B)(i) and (ii) of the application, Exh. 1 by both the parties for the aforesaid period, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.105 of 2022 filed before the District Judge, Gandhinagar.
2. As such, respondent herein entered into an agreement with the petitioners on 07.02.2008 whereby 5,30,000 sq meters of land for phase II project situated at GIDC, Savli on licence for development of industrial park on payment of total amount of Rs.16,95,55,500/-, including cost of land, water, power supply and general infrastructure cost etc, possession of the said land was given to the respondent herein on 08.02.2008. Vide corrigendum dated 09.11.2008, the plot size was reduced to 5,08,548.07 sq meters. As such, allotment of the land pursuant to an agreement on payment of amount, as aforesaid, is not in dispute in these petitions, and therefore, no further details are necessary for the decision of these petitions.
2.1 However, show cause notice under Section 4(1) of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GPP Act’) came to be issued against the respondent herein calling upon it to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. After the respondent was served with the notice and tendered reply, the petitioners made an order dated 18.07.2022 under Section 5(1) of the ‘GPP Act’ ordering eviction of the respondent holding it to be unathorized occupant of the said premises directing it to vacate the premises on or before 23.08.2022 and handover possession to the DEE, GIDC, Savli, without fail. The said order of eviction is claimed to have been served upon the respondent herein on 22.07.2022 whereas the petitioners have failed to show any date on which the said order came to be served upon the respondent herein. Though nothing much turns on it, it has relevance, if the petitioners initiate any action further under the provisions of the ‘GPP Act’.
2.2 Since the order made under Section 5(1) of the ‘GPP Act’ by the petitioners is appealable within the time prescribed under Section 9 of the ‘GPP Act’, the respondent herein failed to file Appeal within time prescribed therein, and therefore, alongwith the Appeal memo, stay application and application for condonation of delay of 14 days combining the prayer for stay of the impugned order came to be filed by the respondent herein before the District Court, Gandhinagar on 20.08.2022. On the delay application, notice came to be issued, which was made returnable on 22.08.2022, which came to be served to the petitioners on 22.08.2022. However, the learned advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, vide Exh.4 application requested the Court to grant time as no reply could be prepared and it was to be prepared after obtaining certain necessary details from the petitioners. However, learned advocate representing the petitioners before the District Judge assured the respondent herein as also the Court that till the next adjourned date, they will maintain status-quo in respect of the property involved in the Appeal, though it has not been reflected in the application for adjournment filed on behalf of the petitioners but endorsement by the respondent herein reflects the said assurance, which is confirmed by the Cour
The main legal point established in the judgment is that attempts to overreach the process of the court and frustrate the statutory right of appeal to an aggrieved person will not be tolerated.
Natural justice requires a party to be heard before any order that affects their rights is decided, particularly in matters of condonation of delay under statutory provisions.
An application to condone the delay in execution proceedings, particularly under Order 21 Rule 106, is maintainable, and a pragmatic approach should be adopted in considering sufficient cause for del....
The court emphasized the need for substantial justice, the wide discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the balance of convenience between the parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing an appeal must be accompanied by a sufficient cause and a demonstration of diligence in pursuing the remedy, as negligence....
Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal - when an appeal is barred by limitation and an application is made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay along with the memorandum o....
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
