Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Bomi H. Sethna for the appellants and learned AGP Shri Adityasinh Jadeja for the respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Shri J.V. Japee with learned Advocate Himanish J. Japee for respondent No.5 on caveat.

2. By way of this Second Appeal, the appellants - original plaintiffs before the learned trial Court and the appellants before the First Appellate Court seek to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha at Idar in Regular Civil Appeal No.9 of 2007 dated 03.04.2019 confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Idar in Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 2007 dated C/SA/36/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021 31.12.2013, whereby the Civil Suit preferred by the appellants - plaintiffs had been rejected.

3. By way of Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 2007, the appellants -

plaintiffs had inter alia submitted that vide order dated 08.04.1960, the land bearing City Survey No.5254p admeasuring 1297.09 Sq. Mtr. had been allotted to defendant No.5 - M/s. Idar Club, in Civil Suit, by way of revenue free grant and whereas the Club had constructed a premises on the said land incurring expenditure and had also constructed compound wall on the boundary of the land in question. It was submitted that in the year 1977, the land which was on front portion of the club admeasuring 10 x 10 ft. had been allotted to defendant No.2 vide Resolution of Club dated 26.01.1977 for running tea stall on monthly rent of Rs.19/-, whereupon the respondent No.2 had set up 2 tea stalls. It was further submitted that the remaining portion of land in front side of Club had been rented out to plaintiff No.1 for selling fruits and vegetables on monthly rent of Rs.80/-. It was further submitted that father of the plaintiff No.1 was alive till the year 1996 and whereas he was managing the club as its President. It was further stated that though none of the conditions of the allotment order had been breached but a notice for breach of condition had been issued to one Kantibhai Dahyabhai Shah, who was administrator of the acquired land in question and whereas the said notice was stated to be illegal since father of the plaintiff No.1, who was alive till the year 1996 and whereas after his demise, one Hareshbhai was managing Club as its the Secretary. It is stated that without opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5 Club, vide order dated 16.01.1996, the Collector, defendant No.2 had come to a conclusion that there was indeed breach of conditions and hence, the C/SA/36/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021 order of allotment had been cancelled. It is further stated that respondent No.4 - Idar Municipality had requested the Collector to allot the land in question to the Municipality and whereas the Collector had allotted the land to Idar Municipality on condition to deposit Rs.28,33,908/- and that the said amount is not deposited till today. It is further stated that respondent No.4 had attempted forcibly to take the possession of the land from the plaintiffs which resulted into the plaintiffs preferred Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.384 of 2000 and 392 of 2000 before this Court and whereas the said petitions were permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to submit a representation to the Idar Municipality which representation had been submitted by the plaintiffs and whereas it was informed to the plaintiffs that since the land belong to the State Government, nothing is required to done on the representation. It is further submitted that against the order dated 16.01.1996 passed by the Collector setting aside the order of allotment, the plaintiffs had preferred Revision Application before the defendant No.1 Revisional Authority and whereas vide order dated 06.08.2005, said Revision Application had been dismissed. It is stated that since the appellants had apprehended that the possession might be forcibly taken of, they had challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority by filing Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 2007, whereby in addition to prayer seeking declaration that the orders dated 15.01.1992 and 13.07.2005 are illegal and void ab initio, it was also prayed that the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed of land which was occupied by them as tenants. Vide judgment and order dated 31.12.2013, the learned Principal Civil Judge, Idar had dismissed Civil Suit inter alia holding that though the plaintiffs had been given ample opportunity to submit oral and / or documentary evidence the plaintiffs did not C/SA/36/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021 produce any evidence - documentary or oral in support of the Suit and therefore, contention raised by them in the Suit had been rejected.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Bomi Sethna for the appellants has relied upon additional documents submitted by the appellants under heading list of relevant documents on behalf of the appellants, more C/SA/36/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021 particularly, documents purporting to be list of documents submitted as evidence. Learned Advocate submits that the Civil Suit had been initially preferred before learned Principal Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, where Suit was numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2005 and whereas according to the learned Advocate, a list of 16 documents had been submitted for the purpose of relying upon the same. He submits that the list had also been submitted before the learned Principal Civil Judge, who had decided the Civil Suit at Idar after the suit had been transferred from Himmatnagar to Idar. Learned Advocate submits that inspite of documents as evidence being placed before the learned trial Court, yet learned trial Court had not taken the same into consideration.

14. As regards question No.2 the respondent No.4, Municipal Bureau Idar having not paid the amount in lieu of the land having granted to them, in opinion of this Court, neither the same is a question of law nor even a question of fact, more particularly, since it is an issue with which the present appellant has no concern whatsoever. That the C/SA/36/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2021 appellant having not being able to prove any pre-existing right over the land, which would get restored upon the Idar Municipality not depositing the amount as directed by the Government, the appellant has no concern whatsoever about the said transaction.