ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

This is a wholly misconceived appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent society, wherein the following directions have been issued :-

“12. Therefore, in view of forgoing reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner had followed the due procedure for the purpose of redevelopment of the flats in question and has fulfilled the conditions to fall within the ambit of Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973.

13. In view of aforesaid discussion, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of their respective flats to the petitioner society within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

2. The matter before the learned single Judge was pertaining to the objections raised by two members of the respondent society out of 42 in total, pertaining to a decision to initiate process of redevelopment. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners therein and the material on record, the learned single judge has recorded in paragraph No. ‘8’ as under :-

“8. Considered the submissions and decisions relied on. Relief prayed in this petition is to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to vacate their respective flats no. 5 and 6 for the purpose of redevelopment of the flats in question. Considering the two notices issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 01.07.2021 at page 274 followed by another notice dated 02.06.2024 at page 641, it is evident that the condition of the society is dilapidated and dangerous to use. Further, it is case of the petitioner that at present only two to three members are residing in the society, and they are not objecting to vacate their premises, however, they are waiting for the transit allowance and the rent proposed to be paid so that they can shift to another premises. Further, there is no denial to the fact that the society was constructed in the year 1968 and, therefore, the construction is nearly 57 years old. Thereafter, on 20.09.2020 (page 71), 27 members attended a meeting and passed a resolution taking a decision, basis the dilapidated condition of the society that they proceed with redevelopment instead of repairs and maintenance. If a resolution dated 20.09.2020 is perused, it refers to the appointment of redevelopment committee comprising of 07 members and it was resolved that the said committee is empowered to invite offers from developers and thereafter to appoint a developer for redevelopment of the building of the petitioner society. Thus, the submission that the conscious decision in Special General Meeting for redevelopment of the society was taken, merit acceptance. In view of above referred facts in the opinion of this Court the requirement of Section 41 A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act that the society construction is more than 25 years old and more than 75 members (in this case 95.23%) had agreed for redevelopment is fulfilled.”

3. On the grievances raised by the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4/the appellants herein about the society having failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 and the Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, 1974 framed thereunder, the learned single Judge recorded that :-

“8.1. Now taking note of grievance of objecting private respondent Nos.3 and 4, that society failed in following the procedure as provided under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, it would be appropriate to rerecord the procedure followed by the petitioner- Society. The society by its majority members firstly passed unanimous resolution on 20.09.2020, taking a decision to initiate action for redevelopment of the society. Accordingly, as many as 20 offers were received from the developer and out of that 04 have been short listed. Thereafter, considering the offer given by respondent No.5, a decision was taken to accept the prop