Gujarat High Court
Kantibhai Bhavabhai Parikh vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1652 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5555 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1652 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 2 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1652 of 2024
==========================================================
KANTIBHAI BHAVABHAI PARIKH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,3.1,4,5,6,7,8
MS RADHIKA M BHATT(12910) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,3.1,4,5,6,7,8
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HJ DHOLAKIA(5862)
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. JIT P PATEL(6994) for the
Respondent(s) No. 6,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Perused the report of the learned Court Commissioner submitted with the covering letter dated 11.08.2025 to the Registrar, High Court, pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court. The Court Commissioner's report is Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined jointly signed by Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate appointed as the Court Commissioner and Ms. Hetal G. Patel , learned advocate appointed as an Observer, to conduct the meeting which was directed to be held to find out the wishes of the members of the society about the redevelopment in light of the provisions contained Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973.
2. We may note, at the outset, that instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the Society - respondent herein has been allowed, noticing that the building-in-question is quite old and the structural stability report by the licensed Structural Engineer of the Corporation namely Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation dated 10.02.2022 states that the building is not fit in its strength and stability criteria and necessary measures are required to be taken to avoid any fatal damage. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that in the interest of the residents of the buildings/ flats, the decision of redevelopment appears to have been taken in good faith and such process cannot be stalled at the instance of 06 members (respondents before the Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined writ Court) who had objected to such redevelopment.
3. The instant appeal, however, has been filed by 08 persons, who are residents of the society namely 'Patel Baug Co-operative Housing Society Limited'. When the appeal come up for hearing on admission, vide order dated 25.11.2024, this Court has noted the objections of the appellants about the resolution dated 14.02.2022 of the respondent - society, whereby decision was taken to carry out the redevelopment of the society. The main thrust of argument, as noted in the order dated 25.11.2024 to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in directing for removal of the respondent nos.4 to 11 before the writ Court, was that the resolution dated 14.02.2022 had been passed by only 122 out of total 192 members of the society and hence, the requirement of atleast 75% of the flat owners of the building to give consent for redevelopment has not been fulfilled, in view of Section 41A as contained in Part-II of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 [in short, 'the Act 1973') read with Rule 19 of the Gujarat Ownership of Flats (Amendment) Rules, 1974 [in short 'the Rules 1974']. This Court has also noted that as per own admitted case of the respondent - society, as on date Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined there are 192 members, out of which only 122 had agreed for redevelopment being signatories to the resolution dated 14.02.2022. It was further noted that remaining 60 members, who did not participate in the meeting held on 14.02.2022 claimed to have given consent by a subsequent agreement arrived with the members by the society. But the same was not found to be in the spirit of the provisions of Section-41A of the Act, 1973 read with Rule 19 of the Rules framed thereunder. And hence, it was kept open for the society to conduct a fresh process strictly in accordance with law to ascertain the wishes of the flat owners/ members of the society about redevelopment and place the resolution before this Court.
4. Pursuant thereto, a meeting dated 29.12.2024 was held, minutes of which has been brought on record, to assert that the majority of the members have agreed for redevelopment. The appellants, however, have raised various objections to the validity of the meeting dated 29.12.2024 including that there was no validly elected Managing Committee of the society. The dispute was also raised with regard to election of the Chairman who chaired the meeting. It was argued by the Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined learned advocate for the appellants that the resolution passed in the meeting held on 29.12.2024 cannot be given due credence. Noticing the same this Court passed an order dated 22.04.2025 directing the learned advocate for the respondent
- society to file a reply.
5. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length vide order dated 15.07.2025, considering the disputes raised by the appellants about the meeting dated 29.12.2024; further noticing that the process to initiate for redevelopment has been stalled for a long period of time and the report of the Structural Engineer of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as also the notice dated 23.06.2025 issued by the Corporation under Section-264 of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act' 1949 declaring the structures as dilapidated and dangerous, we have issued directions to hold a 'Special General Meeting' of the Society in the presence of two advocates of this Court, who were appointed as Court Commissioner and as Observer. The order dated 15.07.2025 is pertinent to be noted herein in toto.
"1. Having noted the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the fact that there was a Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined dispute with regard to the decision taken by the majority of the members of the society, which is a Cooperative Housing Society, in the meeting held on 14.02.2022 about the redevelopment under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 (for short "the Act, 1973"), by the order dated 25.11.2024, we have permitted the society to hold a meeting to obtain consent of its members in accordance with the provisions of Section 41A of the Act, 1973 read with Rule 19 of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, while keeping the present appeal pending. While issuing the said direction, we have noted the admitted case of the society that as on date, there are total 192 members of the society and only 122 were signatories to the resolution dated 14.02.2022, which number would not make 75% of the total members. Thus, in order to resolve the dispute pertaining to the decision of the majority of members of the society out of 192, directions were issued to hold a fresh meeting, which as per the case of the society had been held on 29.12.2024.
2. As per the case of the society in the affidavit filed before this court, the meeting was held on 29.12.2024 in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 25.11.2024, and out of total 192, majority i.e. 147 members have signed the resolution in favour of redevelopment. However, affidavits in rebuttal, have been filed by different members of the society namely Mrugesh Pravinbhai Patel - appellant no. 5 & Kantibhai Bhavabhai Parikh - appellant no. 1 separately, to object to the meeting held on 29.12.2024. Contradictory stands have been taken in the affidavits filed on behalf of the aforesaid Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined two appellants. In the affidavit of appellant no. 5, it is stated that one Anilbhai Shah was elected as a chairman for the meeting and not more than 53 members have participated in the meeting before the register for the meeting was closed. Whereas in the affidavit of the Kantibhai Bhavabhai Parikh - appellant no. 1 it is stated that veracity/authenticity of 60 members who have signed the disputed resolution dated 29.12.2024 has not been ascertained and that said 60 members were not present on the date of the meeting.
3. In the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the respondent - Society dated 17.02.2025, it is stated that Mr. Chirag Naransinh Thakor - owner of the Flat No. G/11, son of the then Chairman Mr. Naransinh Thakor and the member of the society, was elected to chair the meeting held on 29.12.2024 in compliance of the order of this Court and the collective will of the majority of the members (147 in number) have been expressed in the meeting who have consented to redevelopment.
4. Taking note of the above, we may also record the submissions made by Mr. S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants objecting to the meeting held on 29.12.2024. It is sought to be submitted that there is no validly elected Managing Committee of the society and that the respondent no. 6 who has filed affidavit dated 17.02.2025 is the so called Secretary of the respondent no. 6 - society. The contention is that since no valid election of the society has been held for the last 20 years, hence, in absence of a valid Managing Committee of Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the society, any resolution passed in the meeting dated 29.12.2024 cannot be said to be a valid decision and, as such, cannot be said to be implemented in accordance with law.
5. Considering these submission, suffice is to note that no dispute could be raised about the condition of the building which is being managed by the petitioner - society. A notice dated 23.06.2025 has been issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that structures are in dilapidated condition and need immediate repairs, or else they would be pose danger to the inhabitants therein. The said notice given by the Municipal Corporation under Section 264 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 declaring the structures as dilapidated and dangerous is appended as Annexure FA 1 at page no. '1516' of the paper- book, and is based on the opinion of the Registered Structural Engineer (Grade -1) and the Structural Stability Certificate given by him.
6. Further, considering the fact that the members of the society had held a meeting in the year 2022 consenting to redevelopment and for a period of more than three years, the matter could not be proceeded on account of the dispute raised by the petitioners/appellants about the validity of the meeting dated 14.02.2022. The meeting dated 29.12.2024 was held under the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 25.11.2024, in order to remove the doubts of the petitioners about the decision of the majority, which has again been objected. Considering the objections of the petitioners/appellants to Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the meeting dated 25.11.2025, as noted hereinbefore, we are of the considered view that the appellants who are six (6) in numbers, cannot be permitted to stall the process for redevelopment by raising different objections at different point of time.
7. In so far as the submissions made by Mr. Majmudar objecting to any of the meeting of the society to find out the wishes of the majority of the members of the society to undertake the process of redevelopment. The contention is that any dispute relating to the validity of the meeting dated 29.12.2024 held on the directions issued by this Court can be looked into only by the Board of nominees, inasmuch as, in absence of a validly elected Managing Committee no resolution can be passed for redevelopment.
This submission is not appreciable looking to the dilapidated condition of the building and further for the fact that neither any such objection was taken during the course of the meeting held on 29.12.2024 nor anything in this regard has been stated before this Court in any of the affidavits by the appellants. The assertions in this regard having been made, at the bar, during the course of the submissions made by Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, cannot be appreciated.
8. Further, taking note of the provisions of the Section 41A of the Act, 1973 read with Rule 19 framed thereunder, considering the grievances of the rival parties, we find that the dispute can be resolved by holding a fresh meeting under the Chairmanship of a Court Commissioner. One learned advocate is being appointed Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined as Observer to oversee the affairs of the meeting. The meeting shall be held strictly in accordance with the bye- laws by sending notices of the date fixed for holding the meeting alongwith the agenda to all 192 members of the society. Any member who may not be in a position to attend the meeting physically, may be permitted to attend the meeting virtually, after proper verification of his credentials, on his request, which shall have to be made before the Court Commissioner in advance. It is clarified that only the members of the society are permitted to attend the meeting either personally or virtually, no proxy or representative is permitted to participate in the meeting.
9. We, thus, direct that a Special General Meeting be held in accordance with the above directions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from today. Mr. Ajay Mehta (Enrollment No. G/589/1988), learned advocate is appointed as Court Commissioner and Ms. Hetal Patel (Advocate Code No. 11032, Enrollment No. G/1839/2014), learned advocate be appointed as an Observer. The remuneration for the above persons has to be borne by the Society, which shall be decided later.
10. The report of the learned Court Commissioner alongwith the original record of the meeting such as agenda, resolution of the meeting and the processes undertaken for holding such meeting, shall be placed before the Court on the next date fixed. All cooperation for holding the meeting peacefully has to be provided by the Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined petitioner society.
11. The matter be posted on 12.08.2025 at 12:30 P.M.
12. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing."
6. Today, when the matter was taken up, a report of the learned Court Commissioner alongwith the covering letter dated 11.08.2025 has been placed before us in a sealed envelop. As noted herein-before, the joint report contains signatures of both the Court Commissioner and the Observer. Going through the report, we may note that it states that the notice of Special General Meeting scheduled on 02.08.2025 at the Society's Common Plot from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. was duly served upon 192 members of the society, out of which 132 members are occupying flats constructed by the society. The report states that the notice dated 26.07.2025 was prepared and sent to all the members of the society vide multiple modes of services being Speed Post, affixation on the notice board, affixation on all 132 flats occupied, by Whats- app messaging application and E-mail. The Court Observer had visited the site on 31.07.2025 for verification of the affixation of notices on the common notice board as well as Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined individual flats.
7. On 02.08.2025, the scheduled date and time of the meeting, 147 out of total 192 members of the society were physically present and 30 members remained present in the meeting virtually conducted on Zoom meeting platform and by Whats-app video call. Out of total 177 [147 + 30], members who had attended the meeting, 156 had consented for redevelopment of the society. Out of total 192, 15 members did not attend the meeting and out of those attended (total 177 members), 21 did not give consent for redevelopment of the society.
8. Thus, the total number of 156 members who had given consent comes around 81% of the total 192 members of the society. It is, thus, evident that in the meeting held on 02.08.2025 of the society under the directions of this Court, for the purpose of ascertaining the wishes of the majority of members to go in for redevelopment, in accordance with the statutory requirement more than 75% of the members (majority) have given consent for redevelopment of the society. Considering the joint report of the learned Court Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined Commissioner and the Observer, it is evident that the requirement of taking consent of the majority under Section- 41A of the Act, 1973 read with Rule 19 of the Rules made thereunder, has been fulfilled.
9. It is pertinent to note, at this juncture, that as soon as this report was submitted before us in the sealed envelop, an affidavit was filed beforehand in the Court by Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for appellants. The same is taken on record and was perused after going through the report. The deponent of the said affidavit dated 12.08.2025 is the appellant no.1 namely Kantibhai Bhavabhai Parikh. In the affidavit, various objections have been taken about the meeting dated 02.08.2025 held under the Chairmanship of the learned Court Commissioner. It is stated that the learned Court Commissioner was pleased to publish and serve the notice dated 27.07.2025 for fixing date of the Special General Meeting scheduled on 02.08.2025. Annexure 'A' to the said affidavit is the notice dated 26.07.2025 issued by the learned Court Commissioner. The contention in paragraph-'2' of the affidavit is that no discussion took place in the meeting held on 02.08.2025 and instead of having a Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined proper vote with regard to redevelopment, straight away only consent was recorded by the learned Court Commissioner.
10. It is further contended that on the day of the meeting, several irregularities and defects were noticed in the conduct of the respondents [without clarifying as to which respondent the deponent is referring to]. It is further contended that though office bearers of the society are not duly elected, but they were involved in sending links to members of the society, particularly, one Mr. Piyush Patel was actively involved in sending these links though he was not authorized person for the society. The contention is that no audio/video recording was done, which would ordinarily be required in a meeting of this nature. The appellant had spotted some third parties, who were not even claiming to be members of the respondent - society and yet took part in the meeting. The statement to this effect in paragraph-3 of the affidavit are as vague as they could be.
11. There is an assertion with regard to the presence of an Advocate on record for the respondent - society in the meeting. The contentions are about the procedural Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined irregularities and defects which were brought to the notice of the learned Court Commissioner including mismatch in the date of issuance of the share certificate being prior to the birth of the members. The objections in the affidavit are also pertaining to 60 members of the respondent - society including that some members have not provided their valid share certificates and yet consented to in favour of redevelopment. Annexure-C is the copy of a letter written by the deponent namely Kantibhai Bhavabhai Parikh, flat owner of Flat No.A/11 of the respondent - society, however, the said document appended at page-'1539' of the paper-book does not contain a date. Another letter at page-'1541' appended as Annexure-'C' [colly] contains a date as 04.08.2025, two days after the meeting was held. The objections contained therein are about premature commencement of meeting, unauthorized presence of outsiders, fraudulent consent by 60 unconstructed flat owners and violation of identity proof requirements. There are allegations about the procedural irregularities in consent taken via video call, forgery detection via document year mismatch, consent taken without confidentiality and under pressure. It may be pertinent to note that the affidavit dated 12.08.2025 has been filed by only one Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined member of the society in his individual capacity being appellant no.1 herein, and has not been submitted on behalf of even other appellants impleaded in the present appeal.
12. Further, the report of the learned Court Commissioner/ Observer dated 11.08.2025 records that lots of ruckus were created by certain members and they made it difficult for the Court Commissioner to hold meeting on 02.08.2025, which was conducted under the directions issued by this Court. The observations in paragraph-'4' of the report are to the effect that in order to ascertain the attendance of the members present in the meeting, the learned Court Observer requested to allow the members to put their signatures in the attendance-sheet after verifying their ID proof and names as reflected in the share certificate. Before even commencement of the meeting, few members started raising objections and surrounded the table and made it almost impossible for the learned Court Observer to carry out her functions. Such members raised demand for secret ballot, which was otherwise not feasible and further there was no such direction of this Court.
Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
13. The report records that the Court Commissioner and Observer with great difficulty and dealing with all hostility, undertook the process though few members kept on repeating their objections to the meeting and its mode, when it was informed that as per the directions of this Court the members were required to mark their presence and their views namely whether they agree or disagree to the proposed redevelopment. The contention of paragraph-'7' of the report which records the act of the deponent of the affidavit dated 12.08.2025, noted hereinabove, relevant to be noted hereinunder:-
"7. The few objecting members constantly monitored and supervised the marking of presence and opinion. One of the member Mr. Kantibhai Parikh asked me as to whether he can record the same on his phone to which I had informed him that the same may not be done despite which he made video recordings on his phone. The said member Kantibhai Parikh constantly stood over the table and every now and then sought to interfere with the process undertaken and also sought to antagonize certain members. He and few members during the meeting tried to influence their views on the other members. However, the process which had commenced was continued since any other directions to members present against the objecting members could have led to unwarranted friction."Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
14. It is, thus, evident that the deponent before us in the affidavit dated 12.08.2025 was constantly objecting to the conduct of meeting and thus, has obstructed in the work of the learned Court Commissioner and Observer appointed by this Court, which is nothing but an act of committing contempt of the directions contained in the order dated 15.07.2025 passed this Court. Once this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties including the appellant no.1, had appointed two learned advocates of this Court as the Court Commissioner and Observer to conduct a Special General Meeting to ascertain the wishes of the members of the society for redevelopment as per the statutory provisions, which was the bone of contention of the appellants, the obstructions made by the appellant no.1 in the conduct of the meeting on 02.08.2025 by the learned Court Commissioner and Observer is a contemptuous act.
15. It is more than evident that the entire process of redevelopment of the society where structures are in dilapidated condition as per the Structural Engineer report, is being stalled at the hands of only one person namely Mr. Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined Kantibhai Bhavabhai Parikh who is deponent of the affidavit filed before us today in this Court. The objections raised by the appellant no.1 in his affidavit filed in the Court through Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on his behalf, therefore, cannot be accepted as true and genuine.
16. It is evident from the averments made in the affidavit of appellant no.1 dated 12.08.2025 and the manner in which the appellant no.1 had obstructed the conduct of the meeting dated 02.08.2025, the wishes of the majority of members of the society agreed about the redevelopment obtained as per the statutory provisions, are sought to be refuted by few disgruntled members of the society. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submissions made by Mr. S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants about any irregularities or defects in the conduct of the meeting held on 02.08.2025. It may be noted that apart from one appellant no.1, no other appellants came forward to raise any objection to the meeting held on 02.08.2025. We, therefore, do not find any reason to draw any exception to the joint report submitted by the learned Court Commissioner and the Observer.
Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
17. We may also note that when the report of the Court Commissioner dated 11.08.2025 submitted to the Registrar of the High Court in a sealed envelop, was opened in the Court, Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellants vehemently contended that the copy of the report be provided to the learned advocates to go through the same.
18. However, taking note of the fact that an affidavit prior in point of time, (before even the sealed envelop containing the report was opened in the Court and the report was looked into), has been filed by one of the appellant no.1 raising various objections to the correctness of the meeting held on 02.08.2025 who had obstructed the meeting in a contemptuous act, we do not find any reason to supply the copy of the report to the learned advocate for the appellants to go through the same to raise any further objections. The meeting was held under the directions of this Court in a detailed order dated 15.07.2025, which was passed after hearing both the learned counsels appearing for the parties in order to resolve a long standing dispute, inasmuch as, the only objection raised by the appellants throughout in the Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined present appeal was that the majority of the members of the society do not agree to redevelopment. The said stand is now found to be incorrect in view of the consent given by the members of the society during the meeting held on 02.08.2025 under the directions of this Court.
19. With the above, we find it fit and proper to dismiss the present appeal, affirming the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, taking note of the subsequent developments, i.e. the consent given by the majority of members of the society about the redevelopment in the meeting held on 02.08.2025. The directions contained in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge though are based on the resolution dated 14.02.2022 of the society, but the same are found to be justifiable and hence are being affirmed in view of the outcome of the subsequent meeting held on 02.08.2025, in its entirety. While affirming the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024, the present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
20. However, for the directions contained in paragraph-'23' Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge, issuing directions to the respondent nos.4, 5, 6.1, 7.1, 8 and 9 before the writ Court, to vacate their respective flats in respondent - society and handover the peaceful and vacant possession thereof for the redevelopment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order, we provide that the aforesaid period shall commence from today, i.e. the appellants herein would be required to vacate their respective flats on or before the 07.10.2025 and shall cooperate in the redevelopment of the society.
21. We further provide that the remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac each) to both the learned advocates appointed as the Court Commissioner and Observer, for the meeting held on 02.08.2025, shall be paid by the respondent - society through cheques within a period of one week from today, alongwith the cost of Rs.3,535/- incurred by Mr. Ajay R. Mehta the learned Court Commissioner in conducting the process for holding the meeting under the order of this Court. We record our deep sense of appreciation to both the learned advocates who have Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1652/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined been able to carry out this mammoth task in a hostile environment.
22. Lastly, the request made by Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellants to stay the operation of this order for a period of eight weeks from today, is hereby turned down in view of conduct of the appellants as noted hereinabove.
Consequently, both the Civil Applications would not survive and the same are disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:48:10 IST 2025