ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.Rashesh Rindani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Shirish H. Gohil for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Asit B. Joshi for the respondent Nos.6 to 10.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare that land admeasuring 4047.83 square meters of survey no 162 situated atMoje Movdi, Tal & District : Rajkot is a common plot of the petitioner society.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declared that the action of respondents in selling the common plot admeasuring 4047.83 square meters of survey no 162 situated atMoje Movdi, Tal & District : Rajkot is illegal, unconstitutional and thus null and void in the eyes of law.

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the revenue authorities in mutating any entry with regard to any sale transaction for land admeasuring 4047.83 square meters of survey no 162 situated at Moje Movdi, Tal & District :

Rajkot till pending and final disposal of this petition.

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the petitioner, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner has described itself as under :

“Shree Hari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Through its promoter and member Ranjitsing Harisinh Parmar Age: 77 years, Occupation:Business

12, Bhaktinagar, Station Road, RAJKOT.”

3. On going through the documents produced on record, the petitioner though titled as “Shree Hari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.”, is not registered Co-operative Housing Society Limited but it is a proposed Co-Operative Housing Society Limited.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Rindani in reply to the query raised by the Court with regard to maintainability of the petition submitted that under Article 226 the Court has wide power to entertain any petition filed by anybody though it may have been stated wrongly as a petitioner in the cause title describing it as a registered Co- operative Housing Society Limited though the petitioner is a proposed Society, the Court is required to entertain such petition in the interest of justice.

4.2. It was submitted that in the cause title it is mentioned that the petitioner Society has filed this petition through its promoter and member therefore disclosing in the cause title that the petitioner Society is a proposed Co- operative Housing Society since 1980 is not necessary.

4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Rindani appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in the memo of the petition facts are disclosed that the petitioner Society is a proposed Society and by way of an agreement for sale entered into on March, 1980, land admeasuring 12 Acre and 1 Guntha of late Kanjibhai Meghjibhai Patel represented in this petition by legal heirs respondent Nos.11.1 and 11.2 was purchased by such proposed Co-operative Society in view of the prevalent provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) at the relevant time.

4.4. It was submitted that after entering into agreement for sale between the petitioner Society and late Kanjibhai Meghajibhai Patel as owners and his brother Govind Meghajibhai Patel, Hansraj Meghajibhai Patel and mother Gangaben Meghajibhai Patel signed as confirming parties and thereafter, the original owner requested the authorities to approve the lay out plan which was duly sanctioned in the year 1980 and as per the lay out plan, so prepared, the land was divided into 190 residential plots whereby the net plot area was 32602.87 square meters and the common area was 4493.85 square meters. It was pointed out that thereafter, late Kanjibhai Meghajibhai Patel also executed a power of attorney along with his brother and mother