Gujarat High Court
Saddamhussain Anvarbhai Chauhan vs The Vadodara Municipal ... on 20 September, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice R.M.Chhaya, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 813 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14575 of 2020
==========================================================
SADDAMHUSSAIN ANVARBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
THE VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 20/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Heard learned party-in-person.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
order dated 2.3.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge (Coram: Nirzar S. Desai, J.), the
learned party-in-person has preferred this
intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent.
3. Following facts emerge from the record of the
appeal:-
The appellant preferred a Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
prayed as under:-
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
"(B) Allow this petition by directing
the respondent to allot separate
residential dwelling units the
petitioner in Kalyannagar area,
wherein, the petitioner are having
their prime right to be rehabilitated
in view of in situ policy.
(C) Grant the interim relief by
restraining the respondent from
making any draw for the allotment of
the residential premises for the
remaining 94 residential dwelling
units which are vacant in the
Kalyannagar area."
It is the case of the petitioner that he is
son of one Salmaben Anvar Chauhan and Anvar
Jashbhai Chauhan who were occupiers of a
dwelling unit in Kalyannagar slum, situated
within the local limits of Vadodara Municipal
Corporation. It is a matter of record that the
respondent-Corporation came out with a scheme,
whereunder alternative accommodation to all
Kalyannagar slum dwellers was provided for and
Kalyannagar slum came to be demolished. It was
the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
should have been provided residential
accommodation at the residential units
constructed at Kalyannagar and not at Maneja
as provided by the respondent - Corporation.
According to the petitioner, the respondent -
Corporation has developed about 580 dwelling
units in Kalyannagar area, out of which, 94
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
units are still vacant and therefore,
allotment of residential unit to the
petitioner in Kalyannagar area is available
and the same should have been allotted to the
petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner
that the respondent - Corporation has not
followed the guidelines of Rajiv Aavas Yojana
Scheme/ guidelines and it was contended by the
petitioner that the petitioner should have
been allotted residential premises only in
Kalyannagar area. The petition was opposed by
the respondent - Corporation and a detailed
affidavit-in-reply was filed. The learned
Single Judge, by impugned judgment and order,
was pleased to reject the petition considering
the affidavit-in-reply and more particularly,
Paragraphs 3 and 10 of the affidavit-in-reply
filed by the respondent-Corporation. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed.
4. Learned party-in-person has in fact reiterated
the contentions raised before the learned
Single Judge before us. It was contended by
the learned party-in-person that as per the
scheme, as far as possible, alternative
dwelling is to be provided at the same place
and not at a far place. It was contended that
the learned Single Judge has also committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that the
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
appellant has suppressed material fact of
allotment of dwelling unit in favour of his
parents relying upon Paragraph 3 of the
petition, wherein it is mentioned by the
petitioner that "The petitioner states that
the respondent-Corporation illegally and
arbitrarily allotted a dwelling unit to
petitioner family along with the other slum
dwellers of Kalyannagar at Final Plot no.48,
Sayajipura by illegal draw.....". On the
aforesaid contention, it was contended by the
learned party-in-person that there is no
suppression of fact. The learned party-in-
person further contended that as per the
policy of situ rehabilitation, the appellant
is entitled to dwelling unit in Kalyannagar
area itself.
5. It was also contended that the officer who has
filed an affidavit-in-reply is in jail in wake
of a scam of allotment unearthed by the
respondent-Corporation. It was also contended
that the learned Single Judge has not
considered the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by
the appellant. Relying upon the Computerized
Allotment Draw of EWS Scheme, Plot P-1,
Kalyannagar TP-FP dated 2.12.2020, it was
contended by the learned party-in-person that
he being unmarried major son of his parents,
is entitled to a separate unit and that the
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
party-in-person is also entitled to benefit of
the same. On the aforesaid grounds, it was
contended that the impugned judgment and order
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the
prayers prayed for in the Writ Petition
deserves to be granted and hence, it was
contended that the appeal requires
consideration.
6. No other or further submissions, averments,
grounds and/or contentions are made by the
learned party-in-person.
7. We have considered the record of the appeal.
Before reverting to the submissions made by
the learned party-in-person, it would be
profitable to note that the action of the
occupiers of the Kalyannagar slum dwellings
was challenged by such occupiers by way of
filing a Writ Petition being Special Civil
Application no. 8187 of 2014, which came to be
disposed of vide order dated 22.9.2014. The
said order was subject matter of Letters
Patent Appeal no.1127 of 2014, which came to
be disposed of with the following directions:-
"7. We find that when the
appellants have shown willingness to
vacate the present area and the
dwelling units and when they have
agreed to shift in the midst of the
term, the Corporation should make use
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
of its good offices to facilitate
providing transportation passes or
otherwise at concessional rate to
those students upto primary school. In
any event, considering the facts and
circumstances, time to vacate is
granted upto 15th November, 2014. It
is made clear that as and when the
allotment is made, it would be open
to the Corporation to take in
writing from the individual persons
for the express relinquishment of the
right over the dwelling unit already
allotted at Kishanwadi.
8. It is further directed that the
declaration made in the affidavit
read with the above referred
direction shall be complied with by
the respondent Corporation. Upon such
direction being complied with, the
cause for the appellants would not
survive and hence, the appeal shall
stand disposed of accordingly."
8. It also appears from the record that as the
said order according to the original
petitioners of the said petition was not
adhered to, the original petitioners preferred
an application for contempt, wherein the
Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to
dismiss the said application and observed
thus:-
"5. The applicant herein, who is one of the
appellant in afore-stated LPA has preferred
the present application to initiate
contempt proceedings against the
respondents alleging deliberate and willful
disobedience of the order passed by
the learned Division Bench of this
Court, more particularly, alleging not
acting as per the solemn
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
affirmation /affidavit tendered before
the learned Division Bench that the
Corporation will provide accommodation
at flats/dwelling units constructed in
projects approved under the Jawaharlal
Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
(JNNURM) at Village Atladra (near
Kalali bridge) and by not providing
alternative accommodations at Atladra
concerned respondents have committed
deliberate and willful disobedience,
which is liable for suitable punishment
under the Contempt of Courts Act.
6. At the outset, it is required
to be noted that the affidavit-in-
reply filed in the aforesaid LPA, on
the basis of which the learned Division
Bench has directed the Corporation to
act as per the affidavit-in-reply /
declaration before the Court reads as
under:
"4. Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Corporation
tenders the Additional Affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent no.1
Corporation wherein, it has been stated
inter alia as under:
"I submit that without accepting the
right of the appellants to get a
different accommodation than one already
allotted to them and the reasons mentioned by
them for such change in area, the Corporation
is willing to accommodate the appellants at
flats/dwelling units constructed in projects
approved under the Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) at Village
Atladra (near Kalali bridge), subject to
their names being included in the list of 362
families found to have been residing at
Kamatipura in the year 2010."
It has been further stated at Paragraph 4 as
under:
4. I submit that the Corporation
assures to allot dwelling units to all
the appellants, as far as possible, at
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
village Atladra and hand over
possession of the dwelling units as
and when the construction of such
units get completed and they become
ready for habitation.
Further, at paragraph 5, it has
been stated as under:
I submit that the grant of
alternative allotment shall be subject
to the appellants voluntarily vacating
the government land presently occupied
by them within a reasonable period and
further relinquishing right to the
dwelling units, if any, already
allotted to them in the past.
7. It is the case on behalf of
the applicant herein-one of the
appellant and even so stated by
learned Advocate for the original
appellants that as such the respective
original appellants have already
relinquished their right on the
dwelling units at Kisanvadi which were
allotted to them earlier and that they
have already declared that they do not
claim any right, title or interest in
the dwelling units at Kisanvadi and
therefore according to the learned
Advocate appearing for the applicant
when the respective appellants have acted
as per the order passed by the
learned Division Bench of this Court, by
not providing alternative
accommodations to the original appellant
at Atladra, it will tantamount to
deliberate and willful disobedience
of the order passed by this Court.
7.1 However, it is required to be
noted that as such the Corporation has
never backed out from their assurance
which was given before the learned
Division Bench. It appears from the
respective affidavit-in-replies filed by
the Corporation that as it was found
that there is likelihood of taking some
more time to complete the construction
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
work at Atladra and therefore the
Corporation thought it fit to
accommodate respective original appellants
at another place, which seems to be
suitable to the respective original
appellants. From the affidavit-in-reply,
it appears that initially the
Corporation offered the respective
original appellants the alternative
accommodation at Maneja where the
units are already ready to use, which
can be allotted to the respective
original appellants, if they are
agreeable. However, it appears that
the respective original appellants have
some reservations with respect to that
place and therefore they are not
agreeable to the aforesaid. From the
affidavit-in-replies, it appears that
even the Corporation was ready and
willing and is ready and willing to
offer alternative accommodations to
the original appellants at Kalyan
Nagar where after completion of
tender process, work order has been
issued. It appears that even some
of the original appellants are
agreeable for alternative accommodation at
Kalyan Nagar which is in the city
area. Further, in the additional
affidavit-in-reply filed by the Commissioner
on 06/07/2015, it is stated as under:
"1. I am the Municipal Commissioner of
Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan and
respondent no.1 in the present
application. I am conversant with the
facts of the case having perused
the record available in the office of
the Corporation. I am authorized to
swear the affidavit on behalf of the
Corporation and am otherwise competent
to swear the present affidavit.
2. I am filing the present affidavit
placing on record the assurance given
on behalf of the Corporation as
regards its commitment to rehabilitate
all the beneficiaries/families found
staying in slums in Kamatipura area
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
of Vadodara city in the survey
conducted in the year 2008-08 with
biometric identification of the
beneficiaries, later it was also
included in the socio-economic survey of
the year 2009-10. I say that the
Corporation had at the relevant time
allotted dwelling units to these
identified families in projects approved
under the Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission.
3. I say that some of these
identified families belatedly objected
to the Kishanwadi location where they
were allotted dwelling units and
insisted on being units at a location
of their choice in the city. The writ
petition filed by them before this
Hon'ble came to be dismissed. Aggrieved
by the dismissal of the petition, they
preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1127
of 2014. Pending the petition, the
Corporation agreed to alter the
location of the dwelling units
allotted to the appellants without
prejudice to its contention that
choice of locality is not available
to the person applying for
allotment of a dwelling unit and that
the allotment is done depending upon
availability of units in projects
approved under the Scheme.
4. I say that the Corporation had
agreed to allot dwelling units in the
housing project at village Atladra. At
the relevant point of time, the
construction was under progress and
the units had not become ready and
available for allotment. Consequently,
the Corporation had clearly stated
that it shall "hand over possession of
the dwelling units as and when the
construction of such units get
completed and they become ready for
habitation."
5. I say that unfortunately the
project could not be completed in
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
time and the work of construction at
the site is still going on. The
Corporation expects consumption of a
reasonably long period of time before
the dwelling units, which could be
allotted to the appellants, are
constructed. Considering the delay in
completion of the project and non-
availability of units at Village Atladra
for allotment to the appellants, the
Corporation is agreeable to offer units
at other places where such units under
the Scheme are ready for possession
and occupation. Alternatively, the
Corporation is also willing to
consider rehabilitating the appellants in
the housing project coming up at
Kalyannagar. I say that the remaining
beneficiaries who are not allotted
houses of Kalyannagar slum the Vadodara
Municipal Corporation has identified
the adjoining to Kalyannagar wherein
construction of houses under the Rajiv
Awas Yojana for the remaining
beneficiaries would be rehabilitated at
the same place in properly
constructed dwelling units complete
with all basic facilities of civic
amenities. I say that the work order
for construction of the units has
already been given to the
contractor and the work at the site
is likely to commence soon. The
possession of the land already
handed over to the contractor for
construction. The possession letter of
Land handed over to contractor is
Annexed herewith AnnexureAR1. I say
that the slum dwellers in the
interregnum period are being given
house rent and such rent shall be
continued to be paid to them till the
project is complete and they are
rehabilitated in the developed housing
project. I say that the Corporation
is willing to extend the same
benefit to the appellants, that is
to say, consider them for allotment of
dwelling units at the same place
wherein remaining beneficiaries of
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
Kalyannagar rehabilitated across the road
of Kalyannagar and given them rent
till the dwelling units at
Kalyannagar become ready for habitation
and are actually handed over to them
for possession. I say that in
the event the appellants desire to
opt for such option then they shall
have to surrender the dwelling units
already allotted to them and presently
in their possession".
8. Thus, from the aforesaid, it
appears that till the respective
original appellants are even
accommodated and/or are allotted
alternative accommodations at Kalyan
Nagar, the Corporation has agreed to
pay house rent to the original
appellants and the Corporation has also
agreed that such payment of rent shall
be continued to be paid till the
project at Kalyan Nagar is completed
and they are rehabilitated in the
developed housing project. Shri Kharadi,
learned Advocate for the applicant
has not disputed that offer of the
Corporation for alternative accommodation
at Kalyan Nagar can be suitable as it
is in the city area.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, it
cannot be said that there is any
deliberate and/or willful disobedience of
the order passed by this Court in the
LPA and/or there is any breach of
solemn affirmation/declaration before
this Court in the aforestated LPA,
which warrants any proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act. All the
efforts are made by the Corporation
to see that the respective
original appellants are given alternative
accommodations. Under the circumstances,
we are of the opinion that there is no
deliberate and/or willful disobedience of
the order by any of the respondents
and therefore no contempt proceedings
are required to be initiated.
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
10. In view of the above, present
application deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed. However, it is
observed that as and when any of the
original appellant approaches the
Corporation within reasonable time for
having alternative accommodation either
at Maneja where the units are ready
to use and which can be allotted at
any time or at Kalyan Nagar and / or
to avail the benefit of house rent so
stated in the affidavitinreply dated
06/07/2015, the Corporation shall consider
the same and act as per the respective
affidavitinreply."
9. In case on hand also, it deserves to be noted
as observed by the learned Single Judge, the
occupiers of Kalyannagar slum were asked to
vacate the slum area in the year 2015. The
parents of the party-in-person also vacated
the said area and have been allotted
alternative accommodation as per the scheme.
The appellant was admittedly a minor son on
the date of removal as well as on date of
allotment of alternative accommodation as per
the scheme at Maneja by the respondent -
Corporation. It is a matter of fact that the
parents who have been allotted alternative
accommodation have never objected to the same
and therefore, on attaining majority, the
party-in-person now cannot be permitted to
raise any objection for and on behalf of his
parents. As far as the contention raised by
the learned party-in-person that he would be
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
also entitled to a separate unit as a major
unmarried son is de hors the very scheme. The
minor son cannot claim a separate alternative
dwelling.
10. Though an attempt has been made and contention
has been raised to the effect that the learned
Single Judge has committed an error in coming
to the conclusion that there is suppression of
material fact is also without any merit. As
can be seen from the record, the respondent -
Corporation had carried out survey and the
names of the parents of the appellant party-
in-person appeared at Sr. No.917 and as
recorded by the learned Single Judge based
upon allotment letter which is on record, the
parents of the party-in-person were allotted
alternative accommodation at Maneja on Ground
Floor in the year 2015 when admittedly the
appellant was a minor. The learned Single
Judge has observed thus:-
"5. As against that, learned advocate
Maulik Nanavati vehemently submitted that
the present petition is not filed by the
petitioner with bona fide intention. The
petitioner is trying to create an
impression that he has been removed from
the slum area and thereafter he has not
been given alternative accommodation in
the dwelling unit constructed by the
municipal corporation and though the
petitioner is allotted a dwelling unit
since the year 2015 and petitioner has
accepted it without protest, the present
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
petition may not be entertained by this
Court. In support of this submission,
Mr.Maulik Nanavati learned advocate for
the respondent Corporation has drawn
attention of this Court to the affidavit-
in-reply filed by the respondent
Corporation and has also drawn attention
of this Court to averments made in paras:7
and 8 of the affidavit-in-reply which read
as under:
"7. I say that family of the petitioner
was found to be residing in the slum. The
petitioner at the relevant
point of time was a minor, perhaps aged
about 13 years considering the fact that
petitioner has described himself to be 23
years of age in the memo of petition. The
family of the petition was included in the
list of beneficiaries identified for grant
of alternative accommodation. The parents
of petitioner applied for being granted
alternative accommodation in any housing
of the Corporation. In the year 2015
Anvarbhai Jashbhai Chauhan and Salamaben
Anvarbhai Chauhan - parents of the
petitioner were
allotted an alternative accommodation on
dwelling units becoming available for
allotment by an open draw system. They
were given a dwelling unit on the ground
floor in the buildings constructed by the
Corporation under the Basic Services for
Urban Poor ('BSUP') scheme of the
Government of India at Maneja in Vadodara.
A copy of Draw Result dated 13.02.2015
showing allotment of dwelling unit to
parents of the petitioner is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure R-1. I say
that since the year 2015 the parents of
petitioner who have been given alternative
accommodation at Maneja have been
occupying the allotted dwelling unit. They
have not objected to allotment of dwelling
unit made to them at Maneja till date.
8. The present petition has been filed
by petitioner in his individual capacity
claiming a separate dwelling unit at
Kalyannagar. I submit that the petitioner
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
has no right of his own to get any
alternative accommodation under any
benevolent scheme of the government. I say
that the petitioner was not found to be
having a hut or shanty of his own in the
slum at the time of survey in the year
2010. As stated hereinabove, the
petitioner was about 13 years of age at
the time of carrying out of survey in the
year 2010. The petitioner presumably was
staying with his parents at the time of
survey in the year 2010. I re-state that
family of petitioner was found to be
staying in the slum, and the family was
thus identified as a beneficiary for
allotment of alternative accommodation by
the Corporation. The parents of petitioner
have in fact been given alternative
accommodation in the year 2015. The
parents have been using and enjoying the
allotted dwelling unit since the year 2015
without any protest. At no point of time -
either at the time of their removal from
the slum at Kalyannagar in the year 2012
or at the time of allotment of dwelling
unit at Maneja in the year 2015 did the
parents of the petitioner insist on them
being given accommodation only at
Kalyannagar and / or refuse to accept
accommodation elsewhere as offered by the
Corporation. On the contrary, they applied
for alternative accommodation and readily
accepted the dwelling unit offered to them
at Maneja. Even subsequent to the
allotment in the year 2015 at Maneja, the
parents of the petitioner have not written
or represented to the Corporation even
once that are not wanting to occupy the
allotted unit and / or are surrendering
the said unit to the Corporation with
insistence of being allotted a unit at
Kalyannagar, as and when constructed by
the Corporation. Each of these facts have
not been stated, and appear to have been
withheld, by the petitioner while
narrating the facts in the memo of
petition. Being a student of law, it was
expected of petitioner to know that it is
necessary to make a full, complete and
true disclosure of all the relevant facts
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
while invoking the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
5.1 Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the
respondent Corporation has further drawn
attention of this Court to page:141 of the
petition whereby the respondent has
produced draw result for plot no.304, 305
and 306 and in that list at serial no.223,
on the ground floor, a premises being
block no.3 of building no.21 was allotted
to father of the petitioner viz. Chauhan
Anvarbhai Jashbhai and his wife Salamaben
Anvarbhai Chauhan. He has further drawn
attention of the Court to the documents
produced by respondent vide affidavit-in-
sur-rejoinder and to the averments made on
in paras:3 and 10 of the affidavit-in-sur-
rejoinder on behalf of respondent, which
read as under:
"3. An affidavit has been filed by the
Corporation declaring that family of
petitioner was residing in slum of
Kalyannagar. The family was identified for
grant of alternative accommodation. A
photograph of parents of petitioner when
they participated in the biometric survey
carried out of the inhabitants of the slum
prior to demolition is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure RR-1. In the year
2015 Anvarbhai Jashbhai Chauhan and
Salamaben Anvarbhai Chauhan - parents of
petitioner were allotted a dwelling unit
by an open draw system in buildings
constructed by the Corporation under the
Basic Services for Urban Poor ('BSUP')
scheme of the Government of India at
Maneja in Vadodara. The mother of
petitioner signed in the register
maintained by the Corporation in token of
receipt of the allotment of dwelling unit.
A copy of the relevant extract of the
register maintained by the Corporation in
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
RR-2. I say that parents of petitioner did
not object to allotment of alternative
accommodation being made to them by the
Corporation. In fact, till date, no
objection has been made by family of
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
petitioner to the allotment of dwelling
unit to them by the Corporation. A copy of
Ration Card and Election Card are annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure RR-3.
4. ..... xxx
10. I submit that without prejudice to
what has been stated in the affidavit-in-
reply filed on behalf of the Corporation
and the present affidavit-in-rejoinder, if
the petitioner or his family are not
intending to avail the benefit of grant of
alternative accommodation provided to them
by the Corporation they are free to write
to the Corporation and surrender the
allotted dwelling unit to the Corporation.
Also, if it is found that the family of
petitioner is not occupying the allotted
dwelling unit and has been residing in
private house, either on account of
absence of need for government provided
accommodation or otherwise, then the
Corporation reserves the right to cancel
such allotment on the ground of non-use
after following due process of law."
5.2 Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the
respondent corporation has drawn attention
of the Court to the list produced by
respondent Corporation at page:197 where
the survey carried out by the respondent
corporation is reflected by way of list
and name of the parents of the petitioner
which is at serial no.917. He has also
drawn attention of this Court to the list
produced by the respondent corporation at
page:197 where the survey carried out by
the respondent corporation is reflected.
Mr.Nanavati has drawn attention of this
Court to photographs at page 198 and the
signature of mother of the petitioner in
the register maintained by the respondent
corporation for the purpose of allotment
and granting allotment letter of the
premises also to the persons pursuant to
redevelopment scheme of the corporation.
Mr.Nanavati has also drawn attention of
this Court to page:200 and 201 of the
affidavit-in-sur rejoinder filed by the
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
corporation whereby the documents like
photo I.D., election card and Ration card
are placed on record. On the strength of
these evidence having been submitted,
Mr.Nanavati has submitted that dwelling
unit at Maneja on ground floor was already
allotted to the father of the petitioner
in the year 2015 and the same is occupied
either by them or by some other persons
but in any case respondent Corporation has
fulfilled the obligation cast upon it in
view of the development policy.
Mr.Nanavati further pointed out that
person to whom residential premises, as
stated above, was allotted has never
objected to the aforesaid allotment being
the parents of the petitioner, who were
occupier of the hut in slum area, are not
before this Court and, therefore, present
petition is required to be dismissed in
view of the fact that residential premises
already allotted to the persons whose
names are there as per the survey carried
out by the corporation.
6. Except the aspect that while inquiring
with the party-in-person, who was minor at
that relevant point of time, under what
authority he has preferred this petition
or whether his parents have authorised him
to do so, he could neither answer nor
could produce any evidence in that regard
on record, following aspects are also
weighed with the Court.
6.1 Considering the fact that the dwelling
unit has already been allotted to parents
of the present petitioner, who appears as
party-in-person, who are original allottee
(parents of the petitioner) have never
reached to this Court against allotment of
dwelling unit by Vadodara Municipal
Corporation, the present petition is
required to be dismissed on account of
suppression of material facts as neither
in the petition it is stated by the
petitioner nor the petitioner himself has
stated before the Court and has remained
silent about the fact that the parents of
the petitioner is already allotted a
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
residential unit at Maneja and they have
accepted it, without any protest, which is
contrary to the averment made in para:6 of
the petition that respondent may allot the
dwelling units of Maneja to their nearby
slum area but forcing the petitioner to
accept illegal reallocation at Maneja will
not serve the purpose of smart city;
6.2 The present petitioner, who is the son
of one the allottees, is not authorised by
actual beneficiary who happens to be his
parents; and
6.3 though the petitioner has stated in
the petition that the allottees were
forced to accept dwelling unit at Maneja
by Vadodara Municipal Corporation, no
documentary evidence to that effect has
been produced on record by the petitioner,
and therefore also this petition is
required to be dismissed with heavy cost.
7. However, considering the fact that
petitioner is law student and is only aged
about 23 years, I do not think it fit to
impose cost. Considering the aforesaid
material, I am convinced that the parents
of the petitioner were already allotted a
flat at Maneja by Vadodra Municipal under
re-development policy and the same was
accepted by parents of the petitioner
without protest, and, therefore, this
petition is nothing but a clear abuse of
law by the petitioner who now wants
another flat either in lieu of flat
already allotted at Maneja as back as in
the year 2015, such petition cannot be
entertained and the samedeserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order
as to costs."
11. We are in total agreement with the
observations made by the learned Single Judge
and no contrary view deserves to be taken in
the case on hand.
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
12. Even the contention about situ is not only an
afterthought that too, after about 5 to 6
years of the allotment made in favour of the
parents of the learned party-in-person and as
observed hereinabove, the parents of learned
party-in-person have never objected to
allotment made in the year 2015 at Maneja. We
hold that the party-in-person is not entitled
to any separate unit or a separate dwelling
unit as an alternative accommodation as he was
minor in 2015.
13. The entitlement of an alternative
accommodation is a one time measure and the
parents of the learned party-in-person who was
minor on the date of the allotment having
accepted the alternative accommodation at
Maneja, now cannot turn back and say after 5
years that he should have been allotted a
separate unit and/or that he should have been
allotted alternative accommodation at
Kalyannagar area only. The scheme is not only
in persona that is to say the scheme of
alternative accommodation is not only limited
to the party-in-person, but it is for the
whole slum area and from the record, it
appears that the respondent - Corporation has
already allotted alternative accommodation to
the parents of the party-in-person who have
C/LPA/813/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2021
never objected to. No right of the appellant
accrues and no right has been abridged by the
respondent - Corporation.
14. We find that the learned Single Judge has
succinctly considered the whole record
including the rejoinder and sur-rejoinder as
well as affidavit-in-reply filed by the
Corporation and we find that there is no error
much less any error which warrants
interference by this Court in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent. The appeal is totally
misconceived and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
(THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA, J)
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
Maulik
