OSILLACSOALGI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner who was allotted two plots in GIDC had to pay the outstanding amount of instalment as per the GIDC, whereas it is the case of the petitioner that the payment is already made. It appears that the proceedings under Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to "Act") were initiated and it appears that an order came to be passed in September, 1980 for vacating the premises and for taking over the possession. It appears that in the year 1993 the possession of the shed is taken over by the GIDC and when the petitioner approached the GIDC for getting back the possession, the petitioner was communicated that if he is ready to pay the outstanding amount, the request for possession could be considered. As the payment was not made, the GIDC took the decision for disposal of the shed by public auction. It appears that on 8.1.1995 public advertisement was issued for disposal of the sheds and efforts were not materialised and on the date of petition both the sheds bearing Nos CIB 98/5 and 98/6 have remained with the GIDC. It also appears that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.90/95 at the time when the action was taken for auctioning the property as stated by the petitioner. It also appears that the application for interim injunction-Exh.5 was also made by the petitioner in the said suit for restraining the corporation from disposing of the plots in question by public auction. The trial court had granted ad interim injunction which, ultimately, after hearing both the sides was vacated as per the order, dated 30.1.1996. It also appears that the petitioner carried the matter before the Ld.District Judge by preferring Misc.Civil Appeal No.150/96 and as there was delay in preferring the appeal, application for condonation of delay was made which ultimately was rejected and the matter was also carried before this court by preferring Civil Revn.Appln.No.129/97 and as per order dated 26.2.1998 of this court (N.N.Mathur,J as His Lordship then was) the said revision application was dismissed. It appears that thereafter the petitioner has preferred this petition for various reliefs at para 17 of the petition which are reproduced hereunder:

(2.) It appears that the basis of the petitioner in the present petition is that extract of books of accounts of GIDC copy whereof is produced at page 17, 48 and order for eviction under Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is the case of the petitioner that different amounts are claimed in different statements of accounts and also referred to in the order under the Act and therefore it is submitted that fabricated record is produced before this court. It is also the case of the petitioner that as such if the amount is properly calculated and considered, the petitioner has already paid the outstanding amount and has paid surplus amount of Rs.55,000/- which is required to be refunded by the GIDC and therefore it has been submitted that the action of taking over the possession of the sheds is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to get back the possession of the sheds. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to damages of Rs.50 lacs from the State of Gujarat. However, Mr.Jaiswal who is appearing as party in person during the course of hearing submitted that for amount of damages he is leaving the matter to the court.

(3.) It is admitted position that the civil suit is preferred for challenging the action of the GIDC of taking over the possession and the said suit is pending before the civil court. What is the actual outstanding amount and whether the amount paid by the petitioner is given due credit and the amount of interest is properly charged or not are essentially the disputed questions of facts which can not be conveniently examined by this court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am inclined to take such view because so far as the petitioner is concerned, as per the petitioner, the outstanding amount is paid and there is surplus payment of Rs.55,000/- whereas the stand of the GIDC at para 15 is as under: