(1.) This case is heard as a part of a bunch of cases, i.e. RSA No. 2186 of 2007, RSA No. 3133 of 2001, CWP No. 4764 of 2001, CWP No. 4352 of 2001 and CWP No. 5033 of 2001. These cases have been heard together since one of the party i.e Shivala, claiming to be the owner of the land in question in all the cases, is the same in all the above-said cases and the remaining parties are either, admittedly, the tenants under that party or the Municipal Committee who claims its ownership over a part of land; on the ground that it became owner subsequently because it is so recorded in the revenue records.
(2.) However keeping in view the nature of the proceedings availed by the parties the appeals are being decided separately and the writ petitions are being decided separately.
(3.) Although cases are being decided separately however it is beneficial to mention some common facts in each of the judgments.