Gujarat High Court
Yunusbhai vs Rajkot on 17 September, 2010
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1694/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1694 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4231 of 2010
To
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1722 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4259 of 2010
=================================================
YUNUSBHAI
HUSAINBHAI JUNEJA - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJKOT
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PP
MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 17/09/2010
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA) It appears that the appellant petitioners have already preferred Regular Civil Suits in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot for permanent injunction on the respondent Corporation and for a declaration that they have a right to do business in their respective land. Earlier some of the shops of the petitioners were demolished by the Corporation on 31.1.2008 whereafter the petitioners have again constructed shops and cabins. Certain facts were brought to the notice of the Court below which having refused to grant interim relief, the same was challenged unsuccessfully in appeal giving rise to the writ petitions as were filed before the learned Single Judge.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the Corporation informed that the Corporation has decided as a policy matter to give hawking plots in an earmarked area to all the persons so as to see that they are not deprived of their livelihood and irrespective of the result of the respective writ petitions and the result of the suits, the Corporation may allot them open plots if they approach the Corporation. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge refused to grant relief as sought for.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have a right over the land and, therefore, they can run their shops on the respective plots.
4. However, as such issue is pending before the trial Court, we are not expressing any opinion with regard to right and title. It is also not clear whether the area in which they intend to construct their shops is a commercial zone or not. In this background, while we are not inclined to interfere with the common order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, allow the petitioners to move before the Corporation for appropriate relief as per the observations made by the learned Single Judge. However, the observations made by the learned Single Judge and by this Court shall not stand in the way of the trial Court to decide the suits which are required to be decided in accordance with law.
5. The writ appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
[S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.] [ANANT S. DAVE, J.] Sundar/* Top