NAGAR SEVA SADAN MANGROL Vs. MOTIVARASH PREMJIBHAI DAMABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an oral order dtd. 11/7/2022, the present Second Appeal, preferred by Nagar Seva Sadan, Mangrol, through its Chief Officer, came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law, which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:-

(2.) The appellant herein was the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 02 of 2010 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mangrol. The suit was instituted by the present respondentoriginal plaintiff seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell, declaration of rights, permanent injunction, and a direction to the appellant to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff's case rested on an assertion that the land had been allotted to him pursuant to Resolution No. 22 allegedly passed in 1973 by the General Board of the Nagarpalika. Upon service of summons, the appellant entered appearance and filed a written statement at Exh. 16, inter alia, objecting to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that, in view of the Government Notification dtd. 19/5/1988 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, the Collector was vested with authority to transfer Government land; hence, the State of Gujarat through the Collector was a necessary party. The appellant also disputed the plaintiff's claim of ownership and possession, asserting that the land was Government land vested in the Nagarpalika and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff -- including Resolution No. 22 (Exh. 24), payment receipts (Exhs. 25 and 26), and an unsigned agreement to sell (Exh. 29) -- did not establish any lawful right, title, or identifiable interest in the absence of proper description or supporting revenue record.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. C.P. Champaneri, appearing for the appellant, with considerable vehemence, contended that the General Body of Nagar Seva Sadan, Mangrol lacked the authority, legal competence, even the locus standi, to pass any resolution for alienation of immovable property vested in the municipal body. It was urged that municipal property is held in trust for the benefit of the public at large, and that the elected body, instead of adhering to the well-settled doctrine of public trust, acted in an arbitrary and autocratic manner by transferring the suit land to the plaintiff without resorting to a public auction or adopting any transparent procedure ensuring fairness and equal opportunity.