RAMESHCHANDRA KANTILAL PATEL Vs. CITY SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed the present Appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2008 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad, in Regular Civil Appeal No.23 of 2006, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2006 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad, in Regular Civil Suit No.37 of 2002, has been confirmed.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the Appeal are as follows:

(3.) THE suit was contested by the respondent No.1 on behalf of the State Government, by filing a written statement at Ex.24 wherein the averments made in the plaint were denied. It was contended that the suit property is not situated on the land acquired by the respondent No.2 (Nagarpalika) but is situated on the land of respondent No.1 (State Government). It was contended that the appellant has not produced any letter of permission from the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2 to allow the appellant to occupy the said land. It was contended in the written statement that the respondent No.1 has not allotted the suit property to the appellant by way of licence or lease and the respondent No.2 has no right to allot the suit property to the appellant by lease or licence, without the prior permission of the State Government. It was also stated that the notice dated 15.1.2002 issued by the respondent No.1 is in conformity with the provisions of the statute and there is no violation of law. The respondent No.1 alleged that the appellant had encroached upon the land belonging to the State Government and, therefore, the suit may be dismissed.