Gujarat High Court
Jigneshkumar Prahladbhai Patel vs Himmatnagar Nagarpalika on 17 November, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1242/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1242 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14768 of 2025
======================================
JIGNESHKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI PATEL
Versus
HIMMATNAGAR NAGARPALIKA & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA(2696) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge whereby the Writ Petition challenging the impugned
notices-cum-orders dated 29.05.025, 03.10.2025 and
07.10.2025 are subjected to challenge.
2. The original petitioner - appellant herein is a tenant of a
portion of shop in a portion of the building in question, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1242/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
is constructed on the land bearing City Survey Nos.3499 and
3500. The private respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the Writ Petition
are the landlords.
3. A perusal of the contents of the Writ Petition indicates
that the original petitioner - appellant herein has instituted a
suit, namely Regular Civil Suit Nos.137 & 138 of 2025, before
the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himatnagar seeking
declaration of his ownership in the shop in question.
4. It seems that a portion of the building in question
wherein the shop in dispute exists, is to be demolished for the
purpose of construction of railway overbridge. A perusal of
the communication dated 29.05.2025 sent by the Gujarat
Urban Development Company Ltd. (for short 'GUDC') to the
Chief Officer, Himatnagar Nagarpalika clearly indicates that
an area of 4.30 meters of the commercial building, namely the
building in question, is to be demolished for the purpose of
construction of railway overbridge. On receipt of the said
communication, the Nagarpalika sent a letter dated
07.10.2025 (page '17' of the paper-book) communicating the
owners that GUDC has deposited the compensation amount
for the portion of the building in question, which is to be
demolished for construction of the railway overbridge and the
owners shall remove the portion of the building in question
carefully and handover the possession thereof to the GUDC.
5. It seems that pursuant thereto, the owners of the
building sent a notice to the original petitioner - tenant asking
him to vacate the shop in question. The said notice issued by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1242/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
the owners, namely, respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the Writ
Court acted as the trigger for the filing of the Writ Petition.
6. A perusal of the prayer clause of the Writ Petition
indicates that the petitioner has challenged the
communications dated 29.05.2025 and 03.10.2025 sent by
GUDC to the Nagarpalika and the notice dated 07.10.2025
sent by Nagarpalika to the owners asking them to remove the
portion of the building in question to the extent of 4.30 meters
required by GUDC for construction of the railway overbridge.
7. In light of these facts, the learned Single Judge has
noted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the demolition proposed is causing prejudice to the
petitioner since he, being the tenant, is doing business for a
long time. The assertion of the petitioner that the owners of
the building made a representation to the Chief Officer,
Himatnagar Nagarpalika stating that instead of a portion of
the building, the entire structure is to be removed is neither
here nor there. It is also pertinent to note that as a result of
the notice dated 08.10.2025 issued by the owners to the
petitioner - tenant to vacate the building in question, a civil
suit has already been filed by him, which is pending
consideration.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to
interfere in the judgment impugned, wherein it is
categorically recorded that for any private dispute between
the tenant and the owner, the remedy in the petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1242/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in holding
that the reliance placed on the communication addressed by
the private respondents - owners to the petitioner would be of
no help because it relates to private disputes between the
parties. As regards the Nagarpalika, no infirmity could be
shown in the notice issued by it to the original owners. None
of the notice concerns the petitioner, who is simply a tenant of
a shop in the building in question.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merits.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)
(D.N.RAY, J.)
siji
