Gujarat High Court
Saiyed Noorali Lalmiya Son Of Saiyed ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 3 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10853 of 2016
==========================================================
SAIYED NOORALI LALMIYA SON OF SAIYED LALMIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MINESH D ERINPURIA(8512)for Appellant No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for Appellant No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ABHIJIT RATHOD FOR MR MEHUL H RATHOD(701) for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 11/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. No one has put in appearance to press the writ
petition in the revised call. Mr.Abhijit Rathod,
learned advocate for Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned
advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the
respondent - Municipality.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petitions challenging the
notice dated 27.05.2016 issued by Kalol Municipality.
The prayer made in the writ petition to regularize
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
the cabins/shops occupied by the petitioners in
accordance with the provisions of the Street Vendors
Act, 2014 has been rejected. It is noted by the
learned Single Judge that the road in question over
which the constructions have been raised is a road
near the Town Hall. It was noted that the claim of
the petitioners that they were allotted pucca cabins
on the land which was leased out to them was not
coming to their rescue, inasmuch as, the tenure of
the land lease ran out in the year 1971 and
thereafter there was no renewal of lease in favour of
the petitioners. The show cause notice categorically
indicates that the petitioners were encroachers of
the land in question. The learned Single Judge
records that the arguments of the petitioners that
they were not encroachers based on the assertions of
lease, could not be substantiated.
3. Taking note of the above, a perusal of the show
cause notice indicates that by General Board
Resolution No.101 dated 13.02.2008, it was decided by
the Municipality not to accept rent of the cabins
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
leased out to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2008. It
was further resolved that the possession of the
cabins/lands would be taken from the petitioners to
open the street land. By another General Board
Resolution No.48 dated 31.07.2015, considering the
development of the city and the traffic condition, it
was decided to discontinue the rent system of all
three types of cabins which were rented by the
Municipality at an earlier point of time. All cabins
were constructed on the Government lands of Kalol
city, lease whereof had not been approved by the
State Government. In light of the decision of the
State Government, the petitioners were directed to
hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the
cabins in their possession to the Municipality after
removing all their goods.
4. Having noted the above, we do not find any good
ground to interfere in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed being
devoid of merits in the absence of the learned
counsel for the appellant. It is made clear that in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/01/2024
undefined
case of any scheme for rehabilitation of the original
allottees or their heirs and legal representatives
and not the encroachers, the appellants claim may be
considered, the dismissal of the instant appeal shall
not come in their way.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
