Gujarat High Court
Navneetlal Vanmalidas Khakhkhar ... vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 2 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14892 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2025
=============================================
NAVNEETLAL VANMALIDAS KHAKHKHAR (THAKKAR)
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK(7392), GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH
MR.SIMRANJITSINGH H. VIRK WITH MR.JAGRAT B. SHAH for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, wherein the challenge was to the notice dated 08.09.2025 asking the petitioners to remove encroachment over the lands bearing survey Nos.629/p, 630 and 631 of Town Planning Scheme No.53 (Isanpur) having final plot Nos.160, 161 and 162.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
2. The notice categorically records that the petitioners have encroached upon the land, which is a water body. The contention in the writ petition seeking to challenge the notice issued by the Corporation is that the petitioners are having residential units and a temple on the land in question bearing survey No.630 in Isanpur area of Ahmedabad City, which is on the banks of the Isanpur Lake. The constructions made on the spot are in existence for more than five decades and they were made after taking necessary permissions from the erstwhile Isanpur Gram Panchayat.
3. It is contended in the writ petition itself that the petitioner does not possess any documentary evidence of any allotment or permission given by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, inasmuch as, they are not available with the petitioner. However, reference has been given to the tax receipts to assert that the predecessor of the petitioners have paid applicable taxes to the erstwhile Isanpur Gram Panchayat.
4. After merger of the Isanpur Gram Panchayat into the respondent Corporation, namely Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), the AMC has been collecting various taxes from the petitioners which are paid on time and regularly. Copies of the payment receipts and the bills of taxes and electricity connection are appended to the writ petition.
5. It is contended that the land in question has been given to the respondent Corporation by the Collector sometime in the year 2009, but no further steps have been taken by the AMC and it continued to collect taxes. It is also stated in the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined writ petition that at some point of time in the year 1978, notices were issued by the Collector to the father of one of the petitioners herein raising an issue of alleged illegal construction and carrying on non-agricultural activity on the land in question by constructing a temple. A detailed reply to the said notice was given at the relevant point of time. The copies of the notices and the reply of the year 1979 are also appended with the writ petition.
6. It is contended that the presence and existence of the petitioners and the temple is known to AMC from the time when Isanpur Gram Panchayat had merged with the Corporation long ago. It is also stated in the writ petition that the lands in question had been subject matter of some litigation, where one Shahalam Roza Trust claimed ownership of the land bearing survey No. 630. However, on enactment of Gujarat Devsthan Inam Abolition Act' 1969, the land was ordered to vest in the State Government, which has led to litigation.
7. Around the year 1966, a Lord Hanuman Murty emerged from the land of survey No.630, which prompted construction of the temple and even the Roza Trust appeared to have given land for construction of the temple. Necessary permissions were taken from the erstwhile Isanpur Gram Panchayat and temple and surrounding residential units of Pujaris, etc. were constructed and they are in existence since then. Amongst all these contentions made in the writ petition, suffice it to record that the petitioners are claiming right in the land in question on the plea of long standing posssession.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
8. A perusal of the revenue records, namely Village Form No.7 at page No. '105' of the paper-book indicates that the land in question namely survey No.630, Area 95608 is recorded in the ownership of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the land use thereof is mentioned as "Talav".
9. Taking note of the contentions made in the writ petition and the entries of the nature of the lands in question in the revenue records, we find that the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded that pursuant to the finalization of Town Planning Scheme No.53 (Isanpur), original survey Nos. 629, 630 and 630 are forming part of the said scheme and were given final plot Nos. 160, 161 and 162. These final plots are having ownership of the Government and the State Government gave part of these lands to the respondent Corporation for its development and beutification. The notice impugned categorically records that no construction is permissible on a waterbody and on account of the illegal usage by the constructions raised by the occupants, the water of Isanpur Lake is getting polluted. Passing of drainage water in the Isanpur Lake is also referred in the notice.
10. The learned Single Judge categorically records that the ownership of the subject land is with the State Government as is evident from the revenue record, namely 7/12 Extract at page No. '105' of the paper-book. Not a single document has been produced by the petitioners justifying their constructions after having permission from the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. Mere long possession of the property, which is the Government land and a 'Talav' with the production of Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined documents such as payment towards tax bills and incidental charges shall not create title in favour of the petitioners.
11. From the facts noted from the record, we do not find any error in the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the claim of the petitioners to quash and set aside the notice issued by the Corporation terming the constructions of the petitioner being unauthorized encroachment over the waterbody.
12. We do not find any error in the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in holding that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants of the plot in question, namely survey No.630 which is recorded as the land in the ownership of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the revenue records and is the water body.
13. In this scenario, no interference is called for in the decision of the learned Single Judge.
14. It is also pertinent to note that all issues raised in the writ petition require factual inquiry, which cannot be made within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For this reason as well, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs.
15. After this judgment was dictated in the open Court, a request has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant a stay of the notice of eviction of unauthorized occupation issued by the respondent Corporation.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:02 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
16. In view of the categorical findings returned by the learned Single Judge and the reasoning given hereinabove, we do not find any reason to grant any protection. The prayer for stay of the operation of the notice for eviction is hereby turned down.
17. Pending civil applications stand disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:02 IST 2025