Gujarat High Court
Vaghela Lalitbhai Manilal vs The State Government Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 108 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 108 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 109 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 109 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 110 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 110 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 112 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 112 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 of 2025
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 114 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 114 of 2025
==========================================================
VAGHELA LALITBHAI MANILAL
Versus
THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRITESH M SHAH(8405) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. DHAVAL U. TRIVEDI & MR. SHAILESH DESAI, ASSISTANT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Date : 30/06/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pritesh M. Shah for the
appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Dhaval Trivedi and Mr. Shailesh Desai for the respondents-
State.
2. These batch of appeals are filed under Order 43, Rules 1 of
the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned order
dated 20-03-2025 passed by City Civil Court No. 19,
Ahmedabad City thereby, it has rejected the impugned
injunction application filed by the appellant, who happens to
be the original plaintiff of the respective civil suits.
3. As such, the facts of all these appeals are common and having
common issue germen from it, thereby, taken up for hearing
together and decided by way of this common judgment/order.
4. The parties will be referred to as per their original position
before the Trial Court.
5. To better understand the controversy germane in the appeal,
the facts of Appeal from Order No.108 of 2025 arising out of
Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2025 is considered and referred
herein below:
5.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff, whereas the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
respondents are the original defendants of Regular Civil Suit
No.211 of 2025, whereby the plaintiff sought declaration and
injunction against defendants.
5.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is residing at the suit
premises since last more than 45 years and it is prayed that
without being given an opportunity of being heard and
without serving an individual legal notice upon the plaintiff
by the defendants, he may not be dispossessed/evicted from
the suit premises. The plaintiff has also asked for injunction
against his dispossession accordingly.
5.3. The suit has been contested by the defendants by filing their
written statement/reply contending inter alia that the plaintiff
is not having any right, title or interest in the suit property
and as such, he is only a permissive user who is illegally
occupying suit premises, which otherwise belongs to State
Government. It is further submitted that as such suit property
is required for its redevelopment and most of the blocks/units
are in a dilapidated condition and as such, the plaintiff has
illegally occupied such premises, which is requires to be
pulled down, for which the necessary permission/sanction has
been granted by competent authority of State. But due to the
pending litigation, the defendants are not in a position to
move further in the matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
5.4. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide its order dated
20th March, 2025, has rejected the injunction application,
against which the present Appeal from Order is filed by the
original plaintiff.
6. Submissions of Appellant-Plaintiff:
6.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the appellant would submit
that the plaintiff is residing in the suit premises since last
more than 40 years and has prayed in the suit that, having
not been served with individual notice, the plaintiff is
required to be protected by this Court against forcible
dispossession from the suit premises.
6.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that the
appellant belongs to the lower strata of society, having no
other house to reside and as such, since generation, he is
residing in the suit premises, thereby the plaintiff may not be
evicted by the defendants without following the due process
of law.
6.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that the
notice which was issued by the defendants on 1st January,
2025, is general in nature, which was pasted on the
block/unit and not served upon the individual plaintiff of
respective matters, thereby, the principle of natural justice is
violated by the defendants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
6.4. Thus, making the above submissions of learned Advocate Mr.
Shah would request this Court to allow the present appeals.
7. Submissions of respondents-defendants:
7.1. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Desai appearing for the
respondents would oppose the appeal and vehemently
submitted that there is no merit in the suit and as such, no
error was committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the
impugned injunction application.
7.2. Learned AGP would further submit that the plaintiff is
occupying the suit premises unauthorizedly and illegally and
having no title over the suit property, no injunction can be
granted in their favour.
7.3. Learned A.G.P. would further submit that as such, the
defendants being government machinery never tried to
dispossess the plaintiffs without due process of law, inasmuch
as a notice dated 1st January 2025 was already issued upon
the plaintiffs and there is nothing on record to suggest that
any response has been filed by the plaintiffs against such
notice which was in fact in their knowledge.
7.4. Learned A.G.P. would further submit that the Trial Court has
after taking into account various facts and circumstances and
so also the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
India in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes
and others V/s. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 370, has correctly refused injunction in favour
of the plaintiff.
7.5. Thus, making the above submissions, the learned A.G.P.
would request this Court to dismiss the present appeal.
8. No other and further submissions are made.
9. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties at length and gone through the impugned
application and the order passed thereon and so also the
other documents of the suit which are supplied by the
appellant in the form of paper book.
ANALYSIS
10. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is not a title holder
of the suit property but has been occupying it since long. The
State appears to have been a title holder of the suit premises
and it is a public property which is being unauthorisedly
occupied by the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff was required
to be removed and so, the notice dated 1st January, 2025 was
issued by the defendants which might have been pasted on
the unit/block of the plaintiffs where they are residing. Once,
such notice was received by the plaintiffs, it was incumbent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
upon them to file their response, if any, to the respective
defendants and/or other authorities, which appears have not
been done by the plaintiffs.
11. All the plaintiffs are harping upon only one fact that as
plaintiffs are residing in the suit premises since long, they
should not be dispossessed. It appears from the pleadings of
the parties and so also the documents on record that the
plaintiffs are permissive users who are occupying public
property. The law on such issue is well settled and there
cannot be any injunction against the true owner, that too in
favour of a person who is in unauthorized occupation of
public property, as none of the plaintiffs have been able to
prima facie shown that under which circumstances and/or
any order of the competent authority, they are occupying the
suit premises. Further, in view of the ratio of the decision of
the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Maria
supra, no injunction could have been granted in favour of the
plaintiffs.
12. It is also further requires to be noted here that though the
plaintiff has claimed to have been residing in the suit
premises since last more than 40 years, but no claim of
adverse possession or any declaration to that effect has been
prayed for in the suit. Likewise, the plaintiff is complaining to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
have not received any individual notice from the defendants,
but the notice which is submitted with the plaint dated 1st
January, 2025 issued by the defendants, is also not
challenged in the suit. Even it is not out of place to mention
that suit premises occupied by plaintiffs are claimed to be in
dilapidated condition then, to avoid any untoward incident
also, if it requires to pull down, no fault can be found with
defendants.
13. So, considering the aforesaid factors into account and in view
of not seeking any declaration cum title of the suit property
by way of adverse possession and so also having not
challenged the said notice dated 1st January, 2025 in the suit,
the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to seek any injunction as
prayed for in the impugned injunction application.
14. Lastly, to observe that this Court, having its limited
jurisdiction to interfere with discretionary order passed by
the Trial Court while passing an order in an application filed
under Order 39, Rules 1/2 of the CPC and having not found
any gross illegality, irregularity and/or any erroneous or
perverse reasons at the end of the Trial Court while rejecting
the impugned application, this Court would not like to
interfere with impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
[See: (1) Wonder Ltd. And Another V/s. Antox India Pvt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/108/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Ltd., 1990 Supp1 SCC 727 and (2) Ramakant Ambalal
Choksi V/s. Ambalal Choksi, 2024 SCCOnline SC 3538]
CONCLUSION
15. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and
reasons, I do not find any merit in these batch of appeals,
which are requires to be dismissed,
16. The orders passed by the Trial Court impugned in the
respective appeals are hereby confirmed. Consequently, all
these appeals are hereby dismissed. All civil applications filed
in these appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
Nilesh
