The authority to alienate municipal land must comply with statutory provisions; resolutions made in violation of such authority are legally unenforceable. The suit was time-barred, highlighting significant procedural flaws.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. By an oral order dated 11.07.2022, the present Second Appeal, preferred by Nagar Seva Sadan, Mangrol, through its Chief Officer, came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law, which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:-

“1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2018 upholding the judgment and decree passed in the Regular Civil Suit No.02 of 2010 is in accordance with the settled principles of law and evidence on the record?

2. Whether the resolution of local authority to enter into agreement can be equated with concluded contract/agreement and if no whether Honorable Courts below have erred by not rightfully appreciating and interpreting the documentary evidences (resolution of municipality) that are placed on record by the plaintiff-respondent herein?

3. Whether the Honorable Courts below have committed error in not holding the suit of plaintiff barred by limitation? 4. Whether the Honorable Courts below can direct enforcement of specific performance though no valid agreement/contract is executed between the parties?

5. Whether the courts below has right. Authority, powers or jurisdiction to direct execution of sale deed of government land that too in a suit where government is not made a party? 6. Whether the Honorable Courts below have committed an error by passing a judgment and decree in contravention to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

7. Whether the Honorable Courts below have committed an error by directing the appellant herein to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent herein though the respondent herein during the trial of the suit did not claim any relief pertaining to declaration of his title over the suit land?”

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. The appellant herein was the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 02 of 2010 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mangrol. The suit was instituted by the present respondent–original plaintiff seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell, declaration of rights, permanent injunction, and a direction to the appellant to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff’s case rested on an assertion that the land had been allotted to him pursuant to Resolution No. 22 allegedly passed in 1973 by the General Board of the Nagarpalika. Upon service of summons, the appellant entered appearance and filed a written statement at Exh. 16, inter alia, objecting to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that, in view of the Government Notification dated 19.05.1988 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, the Collector was vested with authority to transfer Government land; hence, the State of Gujarat through the Collector was a necessary party. The appellant also disputed the plaintiff’s claim of ownership and possession, asserting that the land was Government land vested in the Nagarpalika and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff — including Resolution No. 22 (Exh. 24), payment receipts (Exhs. 25 and 26), and an unsigned agreement to sell (Exh. 29) — did not establish any lawful right, title, or identifiable interest in the absence of proper description or supporting revenue record.

2.1. The learned Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 26.09.2017, decreed the suit, declared the plaintiff entitled to ownership and possession of the suit land, and directed execution of a registered sale deed in his favour. The appellant challenged the said decree