[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Navneetlal Vanmalidas Khakhkhar ... vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 2 December, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14892 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1280 of 2025
=============================================
NAVNEETLAL VANMALIDAS KHAKHKHAR (THAKKAR)
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. G. H. VIRK(7392), GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH
MR.SIMRANJITSINGH H. VIRK WITH MR.JAGRAT B. SHAH for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in dismissing the writ petition, wherein the challenge
was to the notice dated 08.09.2025 asking the petitioners to
remove encroachment over the lands bearing survey
Nos.629/p, 630 and 631 of Town Planning Scheme No.53
(Isanpur) having final plot Nos.160, 161 and 162.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
2. The notice categorically records that the petitioners
have encroached upon the land, which is a water body. The
contention in the writ petition seeking to challenge the notice
issued by the Corporation is that the petitioners are having
residential units and a temple on the land in question bearing
survey No.630 in Isanpur area of Ahmedabad City, which is on
the banks of the Isanpur Lake. The constructions made on the
spot are in existence for more than five decades and they
were made after taking necessary permissions from the
erstwhile Isanpur Gram Panchayat.
3. It is contended in the writ petition itself that the
petitioner does not possess any documentary evidence of any
allotment or permission given by the erstwhile Gram
Panchayat, inasmuch as, they are not available with the
petitioner. However, reference has been given to the tax
receipts to assert that the predecessor of the petitioners have
paid applicable taxes to the erstwhile Isanpur Gram
Panchayat.
4. After merger of the Isanpur Gram Panchayat into the
respondent Corporation, namely Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation (AMC), the AMC has been collecting various
taxes from the petitioners which are paid on time and
regularly. Copies of the payment receipts and the bills of taxes
and electricity connection are appended to the writ petition.
5. It is contended that the land in question has been given
to the respondent Corporation by the Collector sometime in
the year 2009, but no further steps have been taken by the
AMC and it continued to collect taxes. It is also stated in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
writ petition that at some point of time in the year 1978,
notices were issued by the Collector to the father of one of the
petitioners herein raising an issue of alleged illegal
construction and carrying on non-agricultural activity on the
land in question by constructing a temple. A detailed reply to
the said notice was given at the relevant point of time. The
copies of the notices and the reply of the year 1979 are also
appended with the writ petition.
6. It is contended that the presence and existence of the
petitioners and the temple is known to AMC from the time
when Isanpur Gram Panchayat had merged with the
Corporation long ago. It is also stated in the writ petition that
the lands in question had been subject matter of some
litigation, where one Shahalam Roza Trust claimed ownership
of the land bearing survey No. 630. However, on enactment of
Gujarat Devsthan Inam Abolition Act' 1969, the land was
ordered to vest in the State Government, which has led to
litigation.
7. Around the year 1966, a Lord Hanuman Murty emerged
from the land of survey No.630, which prompted construction
of the temple and even the Roza Trust appeared to have given
land for construction of the temple. Necessary permissions
were taken from the erstwhile Isanpur Gram Panchayat and
temple and surrounding residential units of Pujaris, etc. were
constructed and they are in existence since then. Amongst all
these contentions made in the writ petition, suffice it to record
that the petitioners are claiming right in the land in question
on the plea of long standing posssession.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
8. A perusal of the revenue records, namely Village Form
No.7 at page No. '105' of the paper-book indicates that the
land in question namely survey No.630, Area 95608 is
recorded in the ownership of the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation and the land use thereof is mentioned as "Talav".
9. Taking note of the contentions made in the writ petition
and the entries of the nature of the lands in question in the
revenue records, we find that the learned Single Judge has
categorically recorded that pursuant to the finalization of
Town Planning Scheme No.53 (Isanpur), original survey Nos.
629, 630 and 630 are forming part of the said scheme and
were given final plot Nos. 160, 161 and 162. These final plots
are having ownership of the Government and the State
Government gave part of these lands to the respondent
Corporation for its development and beutification. The notice
impugned categorically records that no construction is
permissible on a waterbody and on account of the illegal
usage by the constructions raised by the occupants, the water
of Isanpur Lake is getting polluted. Passing of drainage water
in the Isanpur Lake is also referred in the notice.
10. The learned Single Judge categorically records that the
ownership of the subject land is with the State Government as
is evident from the revenue record, namely 7/12 Extract at
page No. '105' of the paper-book. Not a single document has
been produced by the petitioners justifying their constructions
after having permission from the erstwhile Gram Panchayat.
Mere long possession of the property, which is the
Government land and a 'Talav' with the production of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
documents such as payment towards tax bills and incidental
charges shall not create title in favour of the petitioners.
11. From the facts noted from the record, we do not find any
error in the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in
rejecting the claim of the petitioners to quash and set aside
the notice issued by the Corporation terming the
constructions of the petitioner being unauthorized
encroachment over the waterbody.
12. We do not find any error in the opinion drawn by the
learned Single Judge in holding that the petitioners are
unauthorized occupants of the plot in question, namely survey
No.630 which is recorded as the land in the ownership of the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the revenue records and
is the water body.
13. In this scenario, no interference is called for in the
decision of the learned Single Judge.
14. It is also pertinent to note that all issues raised in the
writ petition require factual inquiry, which cannot be made
within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For this reason as well, we do not find any error in the
decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands
dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs.
15. After this judgment was dictated in the open Court, a
request has been made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to grant a stay of the notice of eviction of
unauthorized occupation issued by the respondent
Corporation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1280/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
16. In view of the categorical findings returned by the
learned Single Judge and the reasoning given hereinabove, we
do not find any reason to grant any protection. The prayer for
stay of the operation of the notice for eviction is hereby
turned down.
17. Pending civil applications stand disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
