Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application, your lordships will be pleased to restrain the respondents their officers, servants and agents from carry out further construction on a Common Plot No.B of Rajnagar on land bearing Revenue Survey No.454-A-1 paikee C/LPA/949/2013 JUDGMENT and/or status quo qua the Common Plot No.B of Rajnagar on land bearing Revenue Survey No.454-A-1 paikee be granted.
"1. The land of the Common Plot/common land and the roads shall be considered to be pertaining to co-ownership of all the plot holders of the society. The original owner shall have no right whatsoever."

3.1 Mr. Kakkad further submitted that some of the plots are still not disposed of. He submitted that the action of the Government in starting construction on the land in question without paying any compensation is illegal and the said action requires to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kakkad has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Harikrushnadas Chhaganlal Nanalal and Ishwardas Mohanlal (Seva Samaj Trust) vs. Vinodchandra G. Vaghela reported in 2010(1) GLH 710 wherein it is held that if the common plot is earmarked for common use and common facility of a residential society, the C/LPA/949/2013 JUDGMENT majority of the members of the society cannot take away the right to use the common plot of other members who may be in minority.

4. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. He has drawn the attention of this Court to paras 6 & 7 of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent which has also been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in para 5 of the impugned order. The same reads as under:

"6. I further say that as far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are original owners of Revenue Survey No.454 paiki 1 whereas petitioners Nos. 3 to 10 are the eights plot holders. I further say that the original plot holder i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had by letter dated 23.6.2003 handed over common plot as well as the internal road to the President/Chief Officer, Bhanvad Municipality which have been duly taken over by them and, therefore, the common plot as well as internal roads would rest with the Bhanvad Municipality. I further say that in the present case there are in all 37 plot holders of Rajnagar Society out of which 8 plot holders have approached this Honble Court raising their objections against construction of Anganwadi whereas the remaining 29 plot holders have raised no such objection. It is pertinent to note that many residents of Rajnagar Society has also given their consent/no objection for constructing Anganwadi upon the said common plot. It is stated by those residents that the common plot has remained unutilized since last 17 years and due to non-utilization and accumulation of rain water, there is lot of mosquito menace and by construction Anganwadi the area would remain clean. It say that upon perusing the affidavits annexed along with letter C/LPA/949/2013 JUDGMENT dated 7.2.2012, it transpires that out of 8 plot holders i.e. petitioner Nos. 3 to 10, 6 plot holders have already given their consent for constructing the Anganwadi and, therefore, it is now not open for the respective petitioners to take a different stand.
"6. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is clear that when the petitioners invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court a prompt remedy of Civil in nature was already undertaken in the form of filing a Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2012 and one of the respondents was defendant in the Regular Civil Suit. That contention of learned advocate for the petitioners about existence of illegal and unauthorised construction over the common plot by some of the respondents to construct Anganwadi for welfare of the children under the Integrated Child Development Services and legal right of the petitioners to seek remedy approached the writ Court pale into insignificance inasmuch as the petitioners had already invoked lawful and proper remedy where all the factual aspects about existence of common plot of the society, alleged construction whether illegal or unauthorised or irregular could have been examined on production of necessary material and filing of pursis by the Municipality in the Civil Suit was only a declaration about usage of land for welfare activities of the children upon handing over land by the society to Municipality and out of 29 C/LPA/949/2013 JUDGMENT members only 8 members have grievance. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Collector, Project Manager in-charge of the Integrated Child Development Services programme have denied averments and allegations levelled in petition and that Nagarpalika has passed resolutions granting permission for construction for a noble and welfare purpose of Anganwadi.