SURESHKUMAR MANUBHAI RAWAL Vs. VIRAMGAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jagdish Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner; none for the respondent though served. It is to be noted that the State Government is not joined as party-respondent.

(2.) The petitioner and number of others were holding cabins in their independent rights; Viramgam Municipality, without issuing notices wanted to demolish the said cabins, therefore, as many as 14 writ applications bearing Special Civil Applications No. 7098 to 7109, 7223 and 7224 were filed before this Court. With the intervention of this Court, the parties entered into an amicable settlement which was recorded by this Court on 27th November, 1995. It was agreed between the parties that each of the petitioner would be given space admeasuring 6 ft. x 8 ft., and such persons would not be allowed to obstruct the road or the pavement. In view of the said settlement, the said writ applications were disposed of.

(3.) Despite disposal of those writ applications, the question of mesne profits remained to be decided, therefore, M.C.A. No. 187/96 was filed in Special Civil Application No. 7107/95, the said application came to be disposed of on 19.11.96 in view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality that the Municipality shall accept the rent or license fees or mesne profits or whatever it is called, from each of the petitioner. It appears that the present petitioner did not file any writ application, but he was also shifted from the original place along with other cabin holders. The petitioner was also allotted space admeasuring 6ft.x 8ft. The petitioner, after the allotment, started making payment of the rent and also paid part of the mesne profits. However, when he went to pay rest of the mesne profits, the Municipality orally refused to accept the mesne profits stating that the petitioner was not joined as party-petitioner in the earlier litigation, therefore, the Municipality would not accept the amount and may dispossess the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Municipality in receiving the mesne profits and the apprehended dispossession, the petitioner has come before this Court.