SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Malavi Bhanvarlal Ganeshji & Others – Appellant
Versus
Himmatnagar Nagarpalika Office & others – Respondents
R/Second Appeal No. 193 of 2012
Decided on : 06-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs Nisha M Parikh, MS Abha B Makwana
For the Respondent: Kumar H Trivedi

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing legal ownership and possession in land disputes, and highlighted the legal provisions under the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963, particularly Section 185(2) regarding the power of the Chief Officer of the Municipality to remove obstructions on Municipal land.

Headnote:

Registry Improvement - Land Dispute - Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963, Section 185(2) - The court discussed the legal ownership and possession of the suit property, miss-joinder and non-joinder of parties, and the requirement of statutory notice. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership and possession, and the suit was barred for not giving statutory notice. The court also highlighted the power of the Chief Officer of the Municipality to remove obstructions on Municipal land under Section 185(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a land dispute over a plot in village Motipura, Ta.Himmatnagar. The appellants claimed ownership and possession of the land, but the courts found that they failed to establish legal ownership and possession. The suit was also found to be barred for not giving statutory notice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants failed to establish legal ownership and possession, and the suit was barred for not giving statutory notice. The court also highlighted the power of the Chief Officer of the Municipality to remove obstructions on Municipal land under Section 185(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963.

Issues: The issues included legal ownership and possession of the suit property, miss-joinder and non-joinder of parties, and the requirement of statutory notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership and possession, and the suit was barred for not giving statutory notice. The court also emphasized the power of the Chief Officer of the Municipality to remove obstructions on Municipal land under Section 185(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – original applicants by challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2010 passed below Exh.139 in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 2002 by the learned 3rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar as well as the judgment dated 15.09.2011 passed below Exh.25 & 26 in Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha, whereby the same were dismissed by both the courts below.

2. The present Second Appeal was filed in the year 2012 and is currently pending for admission. No further orders have been passed since 2012, which is a highly concerning aspect of this matter. It clearly indicates the need for improvement in the system of the Registry for listing cases. Upon perusal the proceedings of this case, it is revealed that it was initially filed on 07.09.2012 and subsequently listed before the learned Court on 26.09.2012, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, by order dated 7.11.2012 in Misc. Civil Application No.3044 of 2012 for restoration, the Court restored the matter by allowing that application. Despite this, it appears that the matter was never brought before the Court again until 07.01.2020, when it was finally listed again. Throughout the year 2020, the matter was scheduled for several occasions, but unfortunately, no progress was made. For reasons best known to the Registry, the matter wen to cut off, until it was eventually brought back before this Court. Consequently, the matter is now being taken up for consideration.

3. Heard Mrs. Nisha M. Parikh, learned advocate for the appellants. No notice is yet issued in the present matter.

4. Brief facts of the case are as such that there is a land bearing Survey No.23 admeasuring 28066 sq.mtrs. at village Motipura, Ta.Himmatnagar. That there are number of plots carved from the Revenue Survey No.23. The Applicant No.1 has purchased the Plot No.8 from survey No.23 by way of registered sale deed dtd.24/1/2000 and the said sale deed registered at serial no.162 as the registered maintain by the Registrar. Similarly, applicant No.2 has also purchased the land admeasuring 102.90 sq.ft., which was the part of the Plot No.8 by way of registered sale deed on dtd. 24/1/2000 and the said sale deed registered at serial no.163 as registered maintain by the Registrar. On the basis of the sale deed, the applicants have given the application to the Himmatnagar Nagarpalika to be muted their name in the record of the Nagarpalika. On the basis of their application, their name came to be muted in entry no.1129 on 23/5/2002. The applicants have put a cabins and he is doing business. The applicants have started to construct the common wall in the plot of their own ownership. The respondent no. 2 to 5 have raised the objection on it and made the representation to the respondent no.1 to remove the said wall and cabin. It is further the case of the applicants in this application that the said entry came to be disputed and RTS/Case No.2- 3/04 was filed before the Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar by the Respondent No.2. The Mamlatdar, Himmatnagar has passed the order on dtd.16/12/2004 to cancelled the entry no.1129.

It is further the case of the applicants in this application that being aggrieved against the order dtd.16/12/2004, the present applicants have filled the RTS/Appeal/Das/SR45/2006 before Himmatnagar on 21.7.2006. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar has passed the order on 21.8.2006 to allow the appeal of the applicants and confirmed the entry No.1129. The Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar has also stated that order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SCA No.11646/2006 and 11647/2006 is bound to both the parties. The applicants have approached before this Court by way of SCA No.11646/2006 and SCA No.11647/2006 against the removal of the cabins of the applicants by the Nagarpalika. This Court has passed the order on dtd.17/1/2007, withdraw with l

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top