Gujarat High Court
Abdul Salam Abdullah Chaudhary vs Village Panchayat Office - Village Meta on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 396 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 396 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ABDUL SALAM ABDULLAH CHAUDHARY
Versus
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OFFICE - VILLAGE META & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2025, passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2024, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Vadgam in Regular Civil Suit No. 31 of 2023 has been confirmed.
2. For the sake of brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status in the Suit.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:33:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined
3. The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are as follows: It is the case of the plaintiff that Defendant No. 1 launched a shopping scheme. The plaintiff purchased Shop No. 8 in the said scheme, and an agreement was executed dated 26.07.1993. The plaintiff claims to have fulfilled all the conditions. Thereafter, the defendants issued a notice dated 17.01.2023, aggrieved by the said notice, the plaintiff filed the Civil Suit seeking the following reliefs:
(a) To declare the said notice as null and void.
(b) To declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the Suit property by adverse possession.
(c) To restrain the defendants from vacating, disturbing, or harassing the plaintiff.
4. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed a written statement and an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
5. It was the case of the defendant that the suit is barred under Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. Since no notice had been issued as contemplated in Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, the suit, being premature, was barred by law.
6. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the plaint and the documents annexed with it, allowed the application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:33:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined Appeal No. 26 of 2024. After reappreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court, by order dated 30.06.2025, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Second Appeal has been filed.
8. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has primarily argued that, considering the facts of the present case, no notice under Section 270 was necessary because the action taken by the defendant was not in good faith. It has been argued that the action of the defendant was mala fide and arbitrary, and therefore, the requirement of issuance of notice under Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act was dispensed with.
9. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the judgment reported in 1998 (1) GLR 342, Arvindbhai Najibhai Nagrecha Vs. Virpur Gram Panchayat, and further argued that the plaint could not have been partly rejected in view of the fact that the plaintiff had also sought the alternative relief of ownership by way of adverse possession. Consequently, it has been argued that the present Second Appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law as stated therein.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having considered the facts of the present case, it is required to be taken into consideration that the notice issued by the defendants is demonstrably as per the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. A Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:33:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined perusal of the said notice dated 17.01.2023 specifically indicates that it was stated that the plaintiff has encroached upon the suit property. Further, it notes there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff was given time till 25.01.2023 to vacate the premises, failing which action under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act would be undertaken by the defendant. This clearly establishes that the contemplated action was under the Gujarat Panchayat Act.
11. Moreover, before filing the suit, the plaintiff, vide Document 4/6, also replied to the notice and issued a counter-notice to the defendant dated 20.01.2023. This counter-notice is also not as per the provisions of Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act. Even if it is presumed that the said notice conforms to the provisions of Section 270 of the Panchayat Act, the said notice was issued on 20.01.2023, and the suit was filed on 13.02.2023, which is before the expiry of one month from the issuance of notice. Therefore, the said suit could not have been filed by the plaintiff.
12. With respect to the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff, it is held that the said judgment will not be applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the action contemplated in the notice is specifically under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, and therefore, the reliance is misplaced.
13. Furthermore, the plaintiff has sought relief against the Panchayat. For a suit seeking a declaration of adverse possession against a Panchayat, the period of limitation would be 30 years and Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:33:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined not 12 years. Consequently, the claim for being declared the owner by way of adverse possession could not have been sustained by the plaintiff at this stage.
14. In view of the same, there are no substantial questions of law involved in the present Second Appeal, and the Second Appeal is required to be dismissed.
15. In the present case, the conclusion which has been reached by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court cannot be interfered as the judgment and decree of the Court below are not perverse, arbitrary so as to warrant interference. Moreover, as per the well settled decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court ordinarily will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional cases where the findings are such that it shocks the conscious of the Court or may disrespect to the forms of legal process or some violation or some principle of natural justice or otherwise substantial and great injustice has been done.
16. It is required to be noted that in Second Appeal, the scope is very limited and the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. In the case of Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty reported in 1996 (6) SCC 177, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"11. This Court, time without number, pointed out that interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below by the High Court under Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the lower Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:33:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/396/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined courts."
17. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"28. It is thus clear that under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence."
18. Therefore, also the plaintiff has miserably failed to show that there is any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and the substantial question of law which has been suggested in the memo of appeal are also not substantial question of law and on facts and the said factual aspect have well been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and, therefore, the present appeal requires to be dismissed.
19. In view of the order passed in main matter, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:33:52 IST 2025