Gujarat High Court
Thakorbhai Ramjibhai Patel vs Public Works Dept (Pwd) on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 11 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 11 of 2019
==========================================================
THAKORBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT (PWD) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MILAN R MARUTI(7338) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Second Appeal, instituted under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assails the judgment and decree rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No.72 of 2012, whereby the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Ankleshwar, was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant. The appellate Court, in turn, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar, in Regular Civil Suit No.179 of 2007, whereunder the suit instituted by the appellant stood dismissed.
2. The appellant was the original plaintiff, and the respondents are the State authorities. Upon issuance of notice for admission, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: The present appellant, who has been in settled possession of a shop constructed at Hansot Town, just opposite the Bus Station, has been running his seasonal business therein for over four decades, having obtained the requisite electrical and telephone connections, municipal licences, and a permit to sell fireworks during Diwali, nay, regularly discharging all municipal taxes in respect of the said premises. It is the appellant's case that the respondent-authorities, under the ostensible pretext of widening the road, attempted to demolish the said construction and dispossess him, compelling him to institute Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 2007 (Old No. 350 of 1999) before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar, seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs. Though interim status-quo protection was granted during the pendency of the suit, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2012, which dismissal was affirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 277 of 2013 (Old No. 72 of 2012) by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Ankleshwar, vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2018. The appellant, who continues to remain in possession of the suit premises and to run his business therefrom, being indubitably crestfallen by the concurrent adverse findings, has therefore preferred the present Second Appeal.
4. Following substantial questions of law are passed in the present Second Appeal: -
1) Whether learned Civil Court and Ld First appellate court were justified in passing the impugned judgment and order and decree in favor of the present respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case and on evidences adduced upon the record?Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
2) Whether the findings recorded by the trial court are sustainable in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of the pleadings of the parties before the civil court and evidences adduced on record?
3) Whether the original plaintiff gets right to maintain his possession over the suit premises by virtue of doctrine of adverse possession?
4) Whether the respondent authorities can dispossess the appellant/original plaintiff without following due process of law, under the guise of road development, when the plaintiff is having possession over the suit premises since last more than 40 years and he is having his business upon the same and earning livelihood for himself and his family?
5) Whether the first appellate court is not requires to re- appreciate the entire evidences on record and to give its own independent findings upon each issues, irrespective of the findings of lower court/ trial court as per provision of section 100 read with order 41 rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code."
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Abid R. Pathan, appearing for learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya on behalf of the appellant- plaintiff, and the learned AGP for the respondent-State.
6. The factual milieu, as projected before the learned Trial Court, was that the plaintiff has been carrying on his business for the past 25 years on a parcel of land admeasuring 600 sq. ft., forming part of Revenue Survey No. 20, situated adjacent to the Hansot Bus Stand. The livelihood of the plaintiff, as per his case, is inextricably linked with the business being conducted from a cabin erected upon the said disputed land. It was the further assertion of the plaintiff that the Government intended to undertake widening of the public road and, Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined in that process, sought to recover possession of the aforesaid 600 sq. ft. of land presently under his occupation. Ergo, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration and a decree of permanent injunction.
6.1. The defendant-State entered appearance and categorically denied the averments made in the plaint, asserting that the land in question is Government land and that its requirement for road- widening is part of a bona fide public project. It was further contended that the plaintiff is not clothed with any lawful entitlement to retain possession of the disputed land.
6.2. Upon completion of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court, at Exh. 46, framed the following issues:-
"a) Does the plaintiff prove that his possession of the disputed property is lawful?
b) Does the plaintiff prove that he has been in possession of the said premises for more than 25 years and is, therefore, entitled to protection against expropriation?
c) Do defendants Nos. 1 and 2 prove that the plaintiff has instituted the claim by concealing the true facts?
d) Do the defendants prove that the property in question belongs to them and that a State Highway passes through it, thereby entitling them to remove the encroachment upon it?
Is the plaintiff entitled to the compensation claimed by him?
e) What order and decree?"
7. The plaintiff led oral as well as documentary evidence;
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
however, the defendant did not adduce any evidence. Upon due appreciation of the evidence available on record, Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 came to be answered in the negative, whereas Issue No. 4 was answered in the affirmative. The learned Appellate Court thereafter affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Trial Court, upon an independent re-appreciation of the entire evidentiary corpus.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Abid Pathan, seeking admission of Second Appeal contended that, in view of the Government Resolution produced at Exh. 91, the Government was not, in fact, desirous of taking possession of the disputed land from the plaintiff. It was submitted that this material aspect was not adverted to by the Courts below in its proper perspective. It was further urged that the State's subsequent action to take dominion of the shop from appellant is hit by the principle of estoppel, inasmuch as the Government had, on an earlier occasion, represented that it did not require the land, and therefore the subsequent stand taken by the State ought not to have been countenanced. On the strength of these submissions, it was argued that the learned Courts below committed a serious error in dismissing the suit.
9. Be that as it may, it stands clear as crystal from the record that the land over which the plaintiff claims possession is Government land, and the plaintiff, indubitably, cannot assert any legal right to thwart the Government from resuming possession thereof, particularly when such resumption is necessitated for the widening of a public road, a measure taken in the larger public interest. The factual matrix, as delineated in the record, is utterly devoid of any indica of a legally enforceable right inhering in the plaintiff.
Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
Possession of plaintiff thereof on behalf of Government, is at the most proved to be permissive user, he has no right to continue his possession when Government has demanded back.
9.1. In the aforesaid conspectus, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Courts below have not committed any error, much less any jurisdictional or perversity-based error, in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal.
10. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 2843-2844 of 2010, wherein, in Para 37, the Apex Court has lucidly and categorically enunciated the legal position in the following terms:-
"37. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus:
(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact, but the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document, involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law.
(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law.
A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/11/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
(iii) A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the Court below has decided the mat-ter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law.
(iv) The general rule is, that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The factual milieu does not give rise to any substantial question of law so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ergo, the second appeal stands DISMISSED. Consequently, all pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 IST 2025