Gujarat High Court
Vaghela Lalitbhai Manilal vs The State Government Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 108 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 108 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 109 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 109 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 110 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 110 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 112 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 112 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 114 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 114 of 2025
==========================================================
VAGHELA LALITBHAI MANILAL
Versus
THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRITESH M SHAH(8405) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. DHAVAL U. TRIVEDI & MR. SHAILESH DESAI, ASSISTANT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Date : 30/06/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pritesh M. Shah for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhaval Trivedi and Mr. Shailesh Desai for the respondents- State.
2. These batch of appeals are filed under Order 43, Rules 1 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned order dated 20-03-2025 passed by City Civil Court No. 19, Ahmedabad City thereby, it has rejected the impugned injunction application filed by the appellant, who happens to be the original plaintiff of the respective civil suits.
3. As such, the facts of all these appeals are common and having common issue germen from it, thereby, taken up for hearing together and decided by way of this common judgment/order.
4. The parties will be referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court.
5. To better understand the controversy germane in the appeal, the facts of Appeal from Order No.108 of 2025 arising out of Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2025 is considered and referred herein below:
5.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff, whereas the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined respondents are the original defendants of Regular Civil Suit No.211 of 2025, whereby the plaintiff sought declaration and injunction against defendants.
5.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is residing at the suit premises since last more than 45 years and it is prayed that without being given an opportunity of being heard and without serving an individual legal notice upon the plaintiff by the defendants, he may not be dispossessed/evicted from the suit premises. The plaintiff has also asked for injunction against his dispossession accordingly.
5.3. The suit has been contested by the defendants by filing their written statement/reply contending inter alia that the plaintiff is not having any right, title or interest in the suit property and as such, he is only a permissive user who is illegally occupying suit premises, which otherwise belongs to State Government. It is further submitted that as such suit property is required for its redevelopment and most of the blocks/units are in a dilapidated condition and as such, the plaintiff has illegally occupied such premises, which is requires to be pulled down, for which the necessary permission/sanction has been granted by competent authority of State. But due to the pending litigation, the defendants are not in a position to move further in the matter.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 5.4. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide its order dated 20th March, 2025, has rejected the injunction application, against which the present Appeal from Order is filed by the original plaintiff.
6. Submissions of Appellant-Plaintiff:
6.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff is residing in the suit premises since last more than 40 years and has prayed in the suit that, having not been served with individual notice, the plaintiff is required to be protected by this Court against forcible dispossession from the suit premises.
6.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that the appellant belongs to the lower strata of society, having no other house to reside and as such, since generation, he is residing in the suit premises, thereby the plaintiff may not be evicted by the defendants without following the due process of law.
6.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that the notice which was issued by the defendants on 1st January, 2025, is general in nature, which was pasted on the block/unit and not served upon the individual plaintiff of respective matters, thereby, the principle of natural justice is violated by the defendants.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 6.4. Thus, making the above submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Shah would request this Court to allow the present appeals.
7. Submissions of respondents-defendants:
7.1. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Desai appearing for the respondents would oppose the appeal and vehemently submitted that there is no merit in the suit and as such, no error was committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned injunction application.
7.2. Learned AGP would further submit that the plaintiff is occupying the suit premises unauthorizedly and illegally and having no title over the suit property, no injunction can be granted in their favour.
7.3. Learned A.G.P. would further submit that as such, the defendants being government machinery never tried to dispossess the plaintiffs without due process of law, inasmuch as a notice dated 1st January 2025 was already issued upon the plaintiffs and there is nothing on record to suggest that any response has been filed by the plaintiffs against such notice which was in fact in their knowledge. 7.4. Learned A.G.P. would further submit that the Trial Court has after taking into account various facts and circumstances and so also the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined India in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others V/s. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370, has correctly refused injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
7.5. Thus, making the above submissions, the learned A.G.P. would request this Court to dismiss the present appeal.
8. No other and further submissions are made.
9. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and gone through the impugned application and the order passed thereon and so also the other documents of the suit which are supplied by the appellant in the form of paper book.
ANALYSIS
10. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is not a title holder of the suit property but has been occupying it since long. The State appears to have been a title holder of the suit premises and it is a public property which is being unauthorisedly occupied by the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff was required to be removed and so, the notice dated 1st January, 2025 was issued by the defendants which might have been pasted on the unit/block of the plaintiffs where they are residing. Once, such notice was received by the plaintiffs, it was incumbent Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined upon them to file their response, if any, to the respective defendants and/or other authorities, which appears have not been done by the plaintiffs.
11. All the plaintiffs are harping upon only one fact that as plaintiffs are residing in the suit premises since long, they should not be dispossessed. It appears from the pleadings of the parties and so also the documents on record that the plaintiffs are permissive users who are occupying public property. The law on such issue is well settled and there cannot be any injunction against the true owner, that too in favour of a person who is in unauthorized occupation of public property, as none of the plaintiffs have been able to prima facie shown that under which circumstances and/or any order of the competent authority, they are occupying the suit premises. Further, in view of the ratio of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Maria supra, no injunction could have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
12. It is also further requires to be noted here that though the plaintiff has claimed to have been residing in the suit premises since last more than 40 years, but no claim of adverse possession or any declaration to that effect has been prayed for in the suit. Likewise, the plaintiff is complaining to Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined have not received any individual notice from the defendants, but the notice which is submitted with the plaint dated 1st January, 2025 issued by the defendants, is also not challenged in the suit. Even it is not out of place to mention that suit premises occupied by plaintiffs are claimed to be in dilapidated condition then, to avoid any untoward incident also, if it requires to pull down, no fault can be found with defendants.
13. So, considering the aforesaid factors into account and in view of not seeking any declaration cum title of the suit property by way of adverse possession and so also having not challenged the said notice dated 1st January, 2025 in the suit, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to seek any injunction as prayed for in the impugned injunction application.
14. Lastly, to observe that this Court, having its limited jurisdiction to interfere with discretionary order passed by the Trial Court while passing an order in an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1/2 of the CPC and having not found any gross illegality, irregularity and/or any erroneous or perverse reasons at the end of the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application, this Court would not like to interfere with impugned order passed by the Trial Court. [See: (1) Wonder Ltd. And Another V/s. Antox India Pvt. Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Ltd., 1990 Supp1 SCC 727 and (2) Ramakant Ambalal Choksi V/s. Ambalal Choksi, 2024 SCCOnline SC 3538] CONCLUSION
15. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, I do not find any merit in these batch of appeals, which are requires to be dismissed,
16. The orders passed by the Trial Court impugned in the respective appeals are hereby confirmed. Consequently, all these appeals are hereby dismissed. All civil applications filed in these appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) Nilesh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025