Gujarat High Court
Navinchandra Vrajlal Somaiya vs Savarkundla Municipality on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2280 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2280 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2280 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 3 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2280 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
NAVINCHANDRA VRAJLAL SOMAIYA & ORS.
Versus
SAVARKUNDLA MUNICIPALITY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 106.1,20.1,48.1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Petitioner(s) No. 106,20,41,42,48,51
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,100,101,102,103,104,105,106.2,106.3,106.4,106.5,107,108,109,11,110,
111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,12,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127
,128,129,13,130,131,132,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20.2,20.3,20.4,20.5,20.6,21,2
2,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41.1,41.2,41.
3,41.4,41.5,41.6,41.7,42.1,42.2,42.3,42.4,42.5,43,44,45,46,47,48.2,48.3,48.
4,48.5,49,5,50,51.1,51.2,51.3,51.4,51.5,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62
,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,8,80,81,82,83,84,85
,86,87,88,89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99
MS MANISHA LUVKUMAR, AAG with
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 08/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Jay Trivedi waives service of notice on behalf of respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela waives service of notice on behalf of respondent - Savarkundla Municipality
2. The petitioners (total 89) have filed this petition challenging (i) the order dated 27.01.2006 (Annexure-A, Page No. 40) passed by the respondent No. 3 - Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, State of Gujarat and (ii) the Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 (Annexure-M, Page No. 107) passed by respondent No. 1 - Savarkundla Municipality. Vide order dated 27.01.2006, the State Government had declared the land located on the river and riverbanks of river Navli, passing through Savarkundla Town (herein after referred to as land in question) as land in the ownership of State Government. Whereas vide Administrative Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005, the earlier lease granted by the respondent No. 1 - Savarkundla Municipality to its allottees has been canceled. Therefore, this petition is filed Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined challenging the validity of the order dated 27.01.2006 of the State Government and the Administrative Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 of Savarkundla Municipality.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:-
3. It is case of the petitioners that, in Savarkundla Town, from the time of Princely State, commercial activities are being carried out in the river and riverbank in small places known as Palas. Accordingly, Pala-Bhada Rules were framed by the then princely State for the purpose of business to be carried out in the river as well as at the river bank of river Navli on 31.10.1950. The Pala-Bhada Rules are annexed at Annexure-B (Page No. 51). Further, since, Savarkundla was situated within the Princely State of Bhavnagar, at the relevant time, Savarkundala Municipality was given special rights to sell the land situated within Municipal limits and was also given further rights to give the land in question for occupation vide Order No. 37 dated 19.01.1948. The Order No.37 is at Annexure-C, Page No. 57 to 60. Condition No.5 of Order No.37, provides for giving the land for occupation. Thus, under Order No. 37 dated 19.01.1948, earlier powers which were assigned to Bhavnagar Municipality were upon formation of Savarkundala Municipality, assigned to the later. Thereafter, a notification dated 10.08.1965 (Annexure-D, Page No. 61) was Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined issued confirming Order No.37 dated 19.01.1948, with certain conditions. Accordingly, Pala-Bhada Rules were framed under Section 275 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and approved by the State Government on 01.06.1966. (Annexure-E Page No. 63). Therefore, the application of Pala-Bhada Rules to the present petitioners being situated within the limits of Savarkundala Municipality is not disputed. Accordingly, time and again resolutions were passed by Savarkundla Municipality for collection of rent and one such Resolution dated 20.08.1997 is at Annexure-F, Page No. 66. It is case of the petitioners that, since Savarkundla Municipality was legally authorized, it allotted cabins/Palas to the present petitioners to run their business and the present petitioners are Pala holders since the time of Princely State on payment of lease rent either monthly or on yearly basis. One of the payment receipts is annexed with the petition and therefore the petitioners being Pala holders are not unauthorized or illegal occupants of the land in question but they are leaseholders and permissible users of the land in question.
3.1 It is further case of the petitioners that earlier an attempt was made to evict the petitioners from their Cabins/Palas. At that time Special Civil Application No. 11911 of 2001 and allied matters were filed wherein, this Court protected the petitioners from eviction without notice. If the order dated Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 09.07.2002 in Special Civil Application No. 11911 of 2001 and allied matters is perused wherein, no action was directed without issuance of notice, and therefore the petitioners did not press the petition at that stage. Thereafter, on account of some pressure once again ignoring that the petitioners are small vendors and doing their business for their livelihood, action of eviction was initiated against Pala holders by way of public notice dated 15.04.2005. For that Special Civil Application No. 6965 of 2005 (Annexure-K, Page No. 78) was filed wherein directions dated 14.06.2005, were issued to the respondent - Municipality to give hearing to the petitioners. In view of the order dated 14.06.2005 in Special Civil Application No. 6965 of 2005 a Civil Suit filed for establishment of the rights of the petitioners was withdrawn. Since the Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 was passed by Savarkundla Municipality, discontinuing lease hold rights of the petitioners, the same was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 13375 of 2005 and other allied matters wherein, this Court vide order dated 21.09.2005 (Annexure-L, Page No. 83) directed respondent no.4 to decide the representation of the petitioners for ownership of land/palas, and accordingly, the petitioners approached respondent No. 4. However, the said representation was rejected taking a decision that the area of River Navli passing through Savarkundla Town does not belong to the Municipality but it belongs to the State Government.
Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Therefore, the order dated 27.01.2006 and Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 are subject matter of present petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 27.01.2006 by the State Government and the Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 by Savarkundla Municipality are illegal and unjust on the following grounds: -
4.1 As referred in the Resolution dated 19.01.1948, Condition No. 5 gives right to the local Municipality to rent the property. Accordingly, Savarkundla Municipality framed Rules dated 31.10.1950 which were sanctioned by the State Government and known as Pala-Bhada Rules. Since the State Government has approved the Rules of Rent and Regulation of palas framed by the Municipality, permitting it to collect the rent, the State is therefore estopped from taking action contrary to the Rules sanctioned by it. Further, under provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, the Municipality is to take care of the River and its area within the limits of Municipality. The State Government has no right over the properties, which vest with the Municipality. Further, Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Section 263 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 assigns power to the Administrator of the Municipality and therefore the order passed by the State Government dated 27.01.2006 is beyond the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.
In this case, since the Municipality had given the land to the present petitioners on lease under the Rules (pala-bhada) which were approved by the State Government, now it is not open for the State Government to claim that the transaction is not valid. It may not be ignored that the petitioners herein are occupiers since last 50 years and are using the land/Palas in question since ages. Since, petitioners are having leasehold rights, for termination of lease the Municipality is required to approach the Civil Court and therefore Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 being contrary to the provisions of the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.2 Learned Advocate submitted that even the earlier eviction process initiated was not in accordance with law and therefore, this Court intervened. The eviction process initiated pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2006 is also bad in law since individual notices were not served to the petitioners. Moreover, though required, personal hearing was not provided to each of the petitioners before initiating any process of eviction. Non- service of individual notices as also non-granting of personal hearing is in breach of principles of natural justice and Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore the order dated 27.01.2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further, despite asked for, documents considered for order dated 27.01.2006, were not provided to the petitioners. The chance to examine the witness as provided under Section 27(3) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short 'the Code, 1879') was not given.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Ravani alternatively submitted that as per the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 the petitioners are lease holders and their leasehold rights were never terminated. Once the petitioners are possessing the leasehold rights, they are entitled to use the public land particularly when no survey is done in relation to the Palas of the petitioners situated in the riverbank or at the riverside/riverbed. Most importantly, even if assuming that the said Palas are required to be vacated, however, considering the long usage of the Palas by the petitioners pursuant to the 'Hazoor Tharav' and the 'Pala- Bhada Rules' framed under Section 275 of Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 the petitioners are first required to be relocated by giving them alternative place to carry out their lawful business for their livelihood and until and unless such land is provided, the eviction process being bad in law deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 4.4 Further, the basis for initiation of action of eviction is the resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005, passed by Administrator and such policy decision cannot be taken by Administrator. If any decision is taken by the Administrator upon the instructions of Collector, then the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.
4.5 In support of his decisions, learned advocate Mr. Ravani for the petitioners has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Shambhu Dayal and Ors .Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors reported in AIR 2004 SC 2438. Learned advocate at this stage submitted that during pendency of this petition, through affidavit of Secretary, Urban Housing Department (Page No. 395) alternative sites were offered wherein petitioners vide reply (Page No. 403) had requested to consider the following: -
(a) To have appropriate committee to allot places to Pala Holders.
(b)To have proper business conveniences, construction, hygiene etc.
(c) Till places are allotted allow petitioners to carry their businesses at present places.Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners on the validity of the order of the State Government dated 27.01.2006 and for the validity of Municipality's resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 has relied upon following decisions: -
Sr. Citation
No.
1 In the case of Mahendra Bhamani v.s Suvidha
Association decided on 27.12.1996 in Special Civil Application No. 7051 of 1995 2 In the case of Bhavnagar Municipality v.s Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 717 3 In the case of Suvidha Association and Anr v.s State of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2017 (3) GLR 1978 4 In the case of State of UP and Ors v.s Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 5 In the case of Samir Sobhan Sanyal v.s Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors reported in 1996 (4) SCC 144 6 In the case of Manav Kendra Education Trust v.s State of Gujarat decided on 04.07.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 783 of 2013 7 In the case of Bachubhai Alias Trikamlal Mohanbhai Patel and Anr. v.s Deputy Executive Engineer (Construction) and Anr reported in 2007 (3) GLR 2202 8 In the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v.s State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (0) GLHEL-SC 1401 9 In the case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kevasji Framji v.s Union of India and Anr reported in 2019 (20) SCC 705 10 State of Rajasthan v.s Padmavati Devi and Ors reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 290 5.1 It was submitted that respondent No.4- State authority Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined failed to consider the binding decision of Supreme Court in case of Bhavnagar Municipality v.s Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 717 that, when the rights are specifically recognized of the Municipality by erstwhile Ruler the said rights cannot be extinguished by passing the order. (Paragraph Nos. 7 to 11). Even the Government Resolution dated 10.08.1965 at page 61 and 62, supports such rights.
5.2 Further, the rights of Savarkundla Municipality of Princely State of Bhavnagar are recognized by Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 7051 of 1995 and in the case of Suvidha Association and Anr v.s. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2017 (3) GLR 1979.
5.3 Moreover, in the three decisions which have been referred earlier i.e. (i) in the case of State of UP and Ors v.s Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997, (ii) in the case of Samir Sobhan Sanyal v.s Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors reported in (1996) 4 SCC 144 and (iii) in the case of Manav Kendra Education Trust v.s State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No. 783 of 2013 decided on 04.07.2013; it is held that the leasehold rights cannot be decided by passing resolution and the only appropriate remedy is to file a civil suit for eviction and the said not being done in this case, the resolution deserve to be quashed and set Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined aside.
5.6 Responding to the affidavit filed by the State as well as respondent Savarkundla Municipality, learned advocate submitted that the affidavit filed by the State Authority and the affidavit filed by Savarkundla Municipality are contradictory. From the affidavit of Municipality (Page No.
269), it is evident that the rent collected from Pala holders was income of the Municipality and therefore the rest of the paragraphs which supports the contention of the State being contradictory deserves to be ignored. Further, the contention of the State that they want to develop the Riverfront Project is also contrary to the various averments of the affidavit because no property can be constructed on the Riverbed, as also if the property is developed as Riverfront project there would not be any open space available.
5.7 Learned advocate for the petitioner thus submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the request of the petitioners to provide alternate accommodation prior to the eviction from their Palas may be considered.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:-
6. Opposing the petition learned Additional Advocate Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined General Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah for the respondent - State submitted that this petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 27.01.2006 passed by Secretary, Urban Housing and Urban Development Department and the resolution dated 12.04.2005 passed by Savarkundla Municipality with a prayer not to dispossess the petitioners from their property in question (Palas) on the ground that they have leasehold right over the subject land,. However, the very issue was subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 11911 of 2001 and allied writ petitions wherein this Court vide interim order dated 09.07.2002 had directed no coercive action subject to filing of undertaking by the petitioners that no constructions will be put on these Palas. However, the petitioners breached the directions dated 09.07.2002 and thus there is breach of undertaking as well as directions of this Court because all the Pala holders have made further construction.
6.1 In the earlier petition filed it was case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the Palas situated on river Navli for which reliance was placed on Hazoor Tharav and Pala- Bhada Rules .However, despite onus lying on the petitioners, leasehold agreement is not placed on record. It is true that vide order dated 21.09.2005 in Special Civil Application No. 13375 of 2005 and other allied matters the State Government was directed to hear the petitioners and accordingly the Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined petitioners were heard before passing the order dated 27.01.2006. Admittedly, the petitioners are in occupation of land situated on river Navli and therefore by virtue of Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, 1879, the land of river and river bed is in ownership of State Government being a water body. Moreover, though heavy reliance is placed on Hazoor Tharav dated 25.02.1948 ,it is not clear as to whether riverbeds are part of Hazoor Tharav.
6.2 Most importantly, after resolution dated 12.04.2005 rent was not collected and so paid by the petitioners and therefore lease hold rights were discontinued from the year 2005. In absence of any leasehold rights of the petitioners with the State Government or Municipality, the petitioners may be termed as encroachers. Further, no proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners despite discontinuation of the lease from the year 2005. Therefore, on both the grounds i.e discontinuation of leasehold rights of the petitioners and under the provisions of the Code, 1879, waterbeds and waterbody are in ownership of State Government, this petition deserves to be rejected.
6.3 In support of her submissions for alternative accommodation, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon decision in case of Roshina T v.s Abdul Azeez K. T. and Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Others reported in 2019 2 SCC 329 to submit that writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable.
6.4 Learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon various averments made in the application seeking vacation of interim relief to submit that this petition deserves rejection as no case is made out by the petitioners that they are in continuation of leasehold rights of the subject land.
7. Learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela appeared for respondent - Savarkundla Municipality and supported the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General. In addition, learned advocate submitted that the petitioners cannot claim the extension of lease or rent period as a matter of right, once lease/rent period was over and not renewed, the petitioners were under obligation to vacate the land. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kundla Press and Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd/ V/s State of Gujarat & Others reported in 2017 (13) SCC 701. Learned advocate further submitted that reliance placed by the petitioners on "Pala-Bhada Rules" as framed by the municipality is also misconceived, because as per section 275 of Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 any rules framed by the municipality are mandatorily required to be approved by the Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined State Government, which is not the case at hand, hence the said rules have no force of law. Further, since the land belongs to the State Government, the municipality has no authority to frame such rules.
7.1 Moreover, even for the sake of arguments even if it is considered that the land belongs to the municipality, then also, as per section 65(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act,1963, the municipality can grant the land on lease for the period of nine years only and not beyond that. Also, none of the petitioners are having existing lease deed or rent agreement for the land in question, basis which they claim any legal right to continue on the land in question.
CONSIDERATION:-
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties and on account of earlier few rounds of litigation for the same subject matter, I would like to re-visit certain facts so as to give a brief background. Challenge in this proceeding is with regard to the order dated 27.01.2006 (Annexure-A, Page No. 40) passed by Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, State of Gujarat declaring the State Government to the owner of subject land located on river and riverbanks of river Navli passing through Savarkundla Town on which Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Cabins/Spaces/Palas have been put up by petitioners. Earlier, Special Civil Application No. 13375 of 2005 was filed challenging the Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 of Savarkundla Municipality, discontinuing lease hold rights of the petitioners, wherein, this Court vide order dated 21.09.2005 (Annexure-L, Page No. 83) directed to decide the representation the petition. The self-same challenge is made in this petition seeking to direct Savarkundla Municipality to continue with leasehold rights by quashing and setting aside Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005.
9. For prayer of quashment of Savarkundala Municipality's Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005, it is case of the petitioners that the land in question was purportedly granted to respondent - Savarkundala Municipality as per the Hazoor Tharav dated 19.01.1948 (Page No. 57), issued by erstwhile Royal State of Bhavnagar, granting powers to the concerned Municipality/Panchayat to sell or lease the land situated within Municipal/Panchayat area of the concerned local body. Therefore, Municipality being the owner of subject land and since had collected rent from petitioners creating leasehold rights in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners being lawful occupants of the land and Palas in question cannot be said to be encroachers and cannot be evicted. Resultantly, cancellation of lease hold rights of the petitioners is bad in law. Same were Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined the grounds in Special Civil Application No. 13375 of 2005, where Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005, of Savarkundala Municipality was challenged.
10. Earlier, public notice dated 15.04.2005 (Page No. 77) for eviction was given pursuant to Savarkundala Municipality's Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005. After the said resolution, notice dated 13.04.2005 was also issued by City Survey Superintendent and Additional Mamalatdar, Savakundla to all Pala holders to remain present either in person or through their representative for personal hearing. The, public notice dated 15.04.2005 for eviction issued by Savarkundala Municipality was subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 6965 of 2005 and quashed vide order dated 14.06.2005, (page 78) on the ground of personal hearing not given by the authority. It is observed that the order dated 14.06.2005 that it is improper for the Administrator of Municipality to give public notice and to call upon the petitioners to remove their cabins/palas from the land in question, when the show-cause was issued by the Government pursuant to the direction given by this Court. The Government was directed to grant hearing to the petitioners by issuing fresh notices and to give them proper time (15 days) to make preparation for the hearing, further allowing the petitioners to produce all the necessary documents which they wish to rely Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined on. Challenge to the resolution was kept open. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6965 of 2005 was assured to be withdrawn and accordingly withdrawn. Prior to year 2005 (notice dated 15.04.2005) also, actions taken earlier in the year 2001, for eviction of palas/ cabins were quashed on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. Thus, that was the first round of litigation.
11. On account of liberty reserved in Special Civil Application No. 6965 of 2005 to challenge the Administrative Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 of Municipality, Special Civil Application No. 13375 of 2005, was filed wherein this Court vide order dated 21.09.2005 (Page No. 83) held that since State Government is already hearing the notices by which the petitioners were called upon to remove the Palas / lands in question pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench dated 14.06.2005 in Special Civil Application No. 6965 of 2005 and the authority was since hearing the matter, the authority was directed to consider the contention on behalf of the petitioners with regard to their rights over the lands/Palas in question. Thus, while disposing of Special Civil Application 13375 of 2005, it was directed that the petitioners may approach the authority (respondent no.4- state authority), who was to decide the notice dated 15.04.2005, if they so choose and make submissions. Thus, this Court under order dated Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 21.09.2005, directed the State Authority to decide both (i)the eviction notice dated 15.04.2005 which was issued pursuant to Administrative Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005 of Municipality and (ii) the status of the petitioners in relation to their ownership of land/ palas. Thus, Special Civil Application No. 13375 of 2005, was the second petition challenging the Resolution No. 8 dated 12.04.2005.
12. In this petition once again a challenge is made against the Administrative Resolution No.8 dated 12.04.2005 of Savarkundla Municipality. Now, on merits of the Administrative Resolution No.8 dated 12.04.2005 of Savarkundla Municipality, it is noticed that the petitioners cannot claim more than lease hold right over their respective palas/ cabins. The said lease was canceled vide Administrative Resolution No.8 dated 12.04.2005 and petitioners are not paying rent and fees from the year 2005. Merely the Pala- Bhada Rules framed pursuant to Hazoor Tharav No.37 dated 19.01.1948 will not give them perpetual lease hold rights in their favour when cancellation/ discontinuation is permissible to respondent-Municipality. A free translation of clause- 5 of the Pala-Bhada Rules reads as under.
"(5) The Municipality irrespective of any earlier order if it deems essential shall be at liberty to Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined pass such orders, prohibiting sitting on such prescribed places"
Therefore, the contention raised that the petitioners are perpetual lease holders is not acceptable and there is no illegality in passing the Administrative Resolution No.8 dated 12.04.2005, by respondent -Municipality.
13. Further, the land in question is admittedly river and river bed land. During pendency of this petition, the office of Chief Officer, Savarkundla through its communication dated 13.01.2023 submitted a proposal to the State Government for construction of riverfront project on both the sides of Navli river and the same is to benefit the people at large. Therefore, the contention of respondents that in view of vesting of land in question with the Government under Section 37 of the Code, 1879, the State is empowered to take a policy decision regarding utilization of such land for public purpose and for the benefit of public at large, merits acceptance.
14. Moreover, since the leasehold rights have been discontinued after passing a resolution in the year 2005 and the land being declared to be ownership of the State Government, the Municipality is precluded from entering into lease agreement. The submission canvased on behalf of the Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined State that even if the land belongs to the municipality, the municipality can grant the land on lease for the period of nine years only as per section 65(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and not beyond that, merits acceptance. Even if taxes have been collected for a certain period and the petitioners had continued possession of the subject land, only possession would not create any right in favour of the petitioners when the land under Section 37 of the Code, 1879, is in ownership of the State Government. On the contrary, none of the Pala holders have original lease deed and from 12.04.2005 the Municipality has stopped collecting rents and therefore there is discontinuation of the lease by the Municipality and despite that no action was taken challenging discontinuation of lease hold rights by the petitioners. Further, from the photographs annexed with the Civil Application it is evident that the riverfront project proposed is for the larger interest of the public and even the condition of the Palas is dilapidated and creates a sanitation issue which may be hazardous to the health of the people.
15. In relation to the decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is noticed that reliance is placed on various decisions referred above in their submissions. In the decision in the case of Mahendra Bhamani v.s Suvidha Association decided on 27.12.1996 in Special Civil Application Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined No. 7051 of 1995, reference is made with regard to the powers assigned to the Municipality for giving property under lease. In this case the Municipal Corporation itself has discontinued with the leasehold rights which were assigned under Hazur Tharav and therefore the said judgment would not be applicable in facts of this case.
16. In the case of Bhavnagar Municipality v.s Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 717, challenge made was with regard to the power assigned to Municipality under Resolution, wherein it is held that State Government has no power to lease the property. In this case, the Municipality itself has discontinued the lease.
16.1 In the case of Suvidha Association and Anr v.s State of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2017 (3) GLR 1978, the issue was in relation to execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner by the Municipality and not the State Government. It was held that Collector has no authority to examine the legality of the lease deed or permission to change the user granted by Municipal Corporation. In the present case, Municipality itself has cancelled the lease .
16.2 In the case of State of UP and Ors v.s Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 issue Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined was in relation to forcible dispossession of a lessee which is not the case here.
16.3 In the decision in the case of Manav Kendra Education Trust v.s State of Gujarat decided on 04.07.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 783 of 2013 challenge was with regard to the lease deed wherein this Court has held that the Court does not pronounce on the aspect of legality and validity of possession. In the present case, the Municipality has cancelled the lease .
16.4 In the case of Bachubhai Alias Trikamlal Mohanbhai Patel and Anr. v.s Deputy Executive Engineer (Construction) and Anr reported in 2007 (3) GLR 2202 the issue was in relation to removal of encroachment and the facts being different in the opinion of this Court the said decision would not be applicable.
16.5 The decision relied upon of Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v.s State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (0) GLHEL-SC 1401 will not be applicable in the facts of this case.
16.6 The decision relied upon in the case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kevasji Framji v.s Union of India and Anr reported in Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 2019 (20) SCC 705 the issue under consideration was in relation to public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The facts being different is not applicable.
16.7 Other decisions are not refereed, since the facts are distinguishable and therefore not applicable.
17. The submission of the petitioners of breach of principles of natural justice on account of non-issuance of individual notices is not acceptable because, representative of the petitioners upon directions of this Court appeared before respondent No. 4. The contention of applicability of street vendors Act, does not merit acceptance since the basis for challenge of the order of State Government dated 12.04.2005 and resolution No. 8 of Municipal Corporation is the Hazoor Tharav and the Rules framed thereunder. On the contrary, respondent-State during pendency of this petition gave some proposal for consideration of cases of the petitioners for alternative accommodation, however the same was not accepted.
18. In view of above and noticing that the petitioners do not have leasehold rights over the subject property and the land in question being a water body is in the ownership of Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2280/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Government, the petition fails and deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
19. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil Applications, if any, would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(MAUNA M. BHATT, J) FURTHER ORDER
20. After pronouncement of judgment, learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the petitioners, requested for extension of status quo granted earlier vide order dated 17.02.2006, for further period of six weeks.
21. The said request is opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader with the submission that stay has been continued since 2006, and that has stalled the riverfront project, as referred in the affidavit.
22. Considering the request on behalf of the petitioners, stay granted earlier vide order dated 17.02.2006, is extended for further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 10 00:56:59 IST 2025