HALVAD MUNICIPALITY v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
(cid:9)In the result, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
#.(cid:9)Mr.Ajmera has submitted that the impugned order has been made by the State Government without the authority of law i.e. the order of the District Panchayat dated 25th February, 1993 was made pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government. For all practical purposes, the said order was made by the State Government and no revision would lie against the order of the State Government. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of inherent lack of jurisdiction and requires to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the said land is situated adjacent to the office of the Municipality and the Municipality required the said land for construction of a building to house the office of the Municipality. He has also submitted that the Trust has been offered other pieces of lands having the same area. However, the Trust has not accepted the said offer. #.(cid:9)The petition is contested by the Trust through the learned advocate Mr.Shah.
Mr.Shah has submitted that the Municipality has no locus standi. He has submitted that the Municipality was not a party to the proceedings before the authorities below. Besides, there has never been a demand raised by the Municipality. The said land belongs to the State Government and the State Government had granted the same to the Trust. The Municipality, therefore, has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order of the State Government. He has further submitted that the order of the District Panchayat dated 25th February, 1993 was made in contravention of the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, the said order was made ex parte without affording an opportunity to the Trust to show cause or of being heard. The said order of the District Panchayat, therefore, was not sustainable. It was, therefore, rightly set aside by the State Government under the impugned order dated 2nd January, 1997. #.(cid:9)I am of the view that both the learned advocates Mr.Ajmera and Mr.Shah are right in their submission.
Operative part
The order dated 3rd March, 1993 of the District Panchayat, Surendranagar has, ex facie, been made without affording opportunity of hearing to the Trust. The said order being ex parte is not sustainable. Similarly, the State Government in its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department could not have set in appeal over the decision of State Government in its Revenue Department and set aside the same. Both the orders are, therefore, inherently wrong and require to be set aside. Ordinarily, in the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 2nd January, 1997 of the State Government would have been set aside. In the circumstance, the respondent no.1 would once again be relegated to challenge the order dated 25th February, 1993 of the District Panchayat, Surendranagar, which is, as recorded hereinabove, ex facie bad and illegal. Hence, the interest of justice requires that the said order also be set aside. #.(cid:9)In the result, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 2nd January, 1997 of the State Government in its Urban Development and Urban Housing Department made in Revision Application No.53/96 (Annexure-'D' to the petition) is quashed and set aside. The order of the District Development Officer dated 25th February, 1993 communicated on 3rd March, 1993 is also quashed and set aside. If at all the Municipality requires the said land for construction of its office, it may, within four weeks from today, make a demand for the same before the concerned authority. If, such a demand is made, the concerned authority shall consider the same after hearing the Trust. In that case, the Trust may be offered an alternative piece of land in exchange of the land in question. #.(cid:9)It is clarified that, if the Trust has to be offered some other piece of land, such other land shall be granted to the petitioner at the price prevalent on the date of the original grant i.e.
20th March, 1984. In case the Municipality does not make any demand for the said land, the Trust shall be at liberty to utilize the said land for the purpose for which it has been granted to it i.e. for the purpose of gymnasium. In no circumstances, the Trust shall utilize the said land for any purpose other than the one for which it was granted. #.(cid:9)It is undisputed that the possession of the said land is with the Municipality. It is, therefore, directed that the Municipality shall maintain status quo as regards the possession and the user of the said land for a period of four weeks from today. In the event, the Municipality demands the said land, it shall continue to maintain status quo till such demand is considered and the order is made by the concerned authority. In case the Municipality does not make the demand as aforesaid within four weeks from today, or the demand that may be made by the Municipality hereafter is rejected by the concerned authority, it shall handover the vacant possession of the said land to the Trust within two weeks therefrom. ##.(cid:9)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to cost. (cid:9) (cid:9)( Ms. R.M.Doshit, J. ) /sakkaf (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (cid:9)In the result, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 13 Feb 2002. The bench was R M DOSHIT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.