ATUL PREMSHANKAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed against the alleged illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents in demolishing the cabin and platform-otta of the petitioner.

(2.) A spectrum of material and relevant facts in the petition may be highlighted at the outset. The petitioner was allotted the land admeasuring 10 sq.ft. situated on Tikar Road Halvad, after bidding the highest offer in auction held on 21.2.1991. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1125.00 to the respondent no.2, Halvad Municipality, by way of caution money for the said land. Pursuant to the Resolution recorded in a general meeting of the respondent no.2,- Municipality, being Resolution No.28 for the purpose of allotting the land for the construction of cabin on Tikra road of Halvad town, rent note for the said land, came to be issued in the name of the petitioner and pursuant to that, the cabin came to be constructed. Thereafter the petitioner moved the respondent no.2- Municipality for the grant of permission for construction of platform-otta near the cabin of the petitioner and the said permission was granted on 31.12.1991. Later on, the petitioner also applied for the allotment of adjoining land, near the cabin on 11.1.1993. It was also granted by the respondent no.2Municipality by Resolution No.28, upon the condition to pay Rs.60.00 per sq.ft. as a development charges. The petitioner also executed the Rent Note for the second parcel of land. The petitioner has, therefore, interalia contended in his petition that upon permission and the Resolution of the respondent no.2-Municipality, he has been in occupation and enjoyment of the land.

(3.) The respondent no.2 , on 29.6.1995, has issued notice to the petitioner along with the other occupants of the land rented out by the Municipality for the removal of the illegal construction on the said land, which led to the petitioner to file Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 1995 before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Dhrangadhra and obtained ad interim order against the removal of the disputed land. By virtue of the ad interim order, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed parcels of land. The ad interim injunction or ad interim order came to be vacated, and as a result of which, the petitioner had to file an appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.12 of 1998, before the Joint District Judge, Dhrangadhra for setting aside the order passed below Exh.6 in a suit, rejecting the application for temporary injunction, after hearing both the parties. The petitioner succeeded in the appeal and again the respondents were directed to maintain status quo, pending the final decision of the Civil Suit. It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the pursis filed in the suit before the Trial Court, stating that they will not take any further action qua the disputed lands, on the basis of which the civil suit came to be withdrawn on 07.12.2002.