PURSHOTTAM VALJIBHAI Vs. JAY AMBE CARD CANE WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent's suit for eviction of the appellant from the land in question was dismissed. The judgment was challenged before the High court, where the learned Single Judge decreed the suit with the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the appellant was a mere trespasser who had to be evicted from the land in question.

(3.) The decision of the Single Judge was challenged before the division bench in letters Patent Appeal. During the pendency of the L. P. A. , a notification dated 4/11/1988 was issued under Section 48 read with Section 65 of the Gujarat Town planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Taking advantage of this notification, the appellant raised the contention before the High court that since the consequence of this notification was that the land in question vested in the Authority and the respondent ceased to be the owner, the decree for eviction passed by the Single Judge was liable to be reversed. The provisions contained in gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973 were also referred to. The High court disposed of this question with the following finding. : "it was submitted that though the defendants are occupying huts under the orders of the court, none the less, they are occupiers as defined herein above and they cannot be removed. We are not deciding the matter which is to be decided by the appropriate authority under the aforesaid acts. The learned Single judge was not called upon to determine the right of a person under the aforesaid provisions. Mr. Shah submitted that in view of the aforesaid notification, defendant should be protected. Notification has been published in 1988 much after the suit came to the filed and after filing of the Letters Patent Appeals. Therefore, in our opinion, if the question is raised before any authority or forum with regard to the applicability of the Act and the protection under the said Act, it will be for such authority concerned to decide the same in accordance with law and not for this court hearing the Letters Patent Appeals to decide the same at this stage. In the result, both the Letters Patent appeals are hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. " it appears that in the meantime, respondents approached the Ahmedabad Municipal corporation which adopted a resolution by which it was resolved to release certain land including the land in question from the Slum Area Maintenance project. This resolution was challenged by the appellant in Civil Suit No. 4227/90 filed against the Ahmedabad Municipal corporation as also the State government. This was a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from releasing the land in favour of the respondents. The application for interim relief was rejected by the Trial court against which the appellant approached the High court and the High court while allowing the appeal passed the following order :- "in the result, this Appeal From Order is allowed with no order as to costs. The relief as prayed for in the Notice of Motion is granted and the respondent - defendants are restrained from releasing final plots Nos. 66 and 67 of Dariapur- kazipur area, T. P. Scheme No. 3 of the city of Ahmedabad from slums upgradation till disposal of Civil Suit No. 4227/ 90. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in CA 699/91 with no order as to costs. " after having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the judgments passed by the High court in this case, we are of the opinion that having regard to the subsequent developments including the developments that took place during the pendency of the LPA before the High court, the interests of justice would be met if the decree passed by the high court in favour of the respondents is not executed during the pendency of the Civil Suit No. 4227/90 referred to above. We order accordingly. The appellant shall implead the respondents in that civil suit which was filed in 1990. We direct that the said civil suit No. 4227/90 shall be expeditiously disposed of, possibly within ten months. Subject to the above, the appeals are dismissed.