Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: gamtal in Bhavnagar Mahanagar Palika Through ... vs Heirs Of Decd.Virbhadrasinhji ... on 7 May, 2020Matching Fragments
5. 21.04.1948 Patrak Date: 21.04.1948 : Patrak 200 (226 (ScheduleA) showing the survey to 237) numbers included in Gamtal (municipal areas). At page 8 of the ScheduleA (Patrak) Serial No.8 Survey No.234 is mentioned.
6. 8.3.1948 The Covenanting States 252 Administration Ordinance - IV of 1948 along with Appendix - XXXIV for State of Kathiawar.
(vii) It was evident from the Note dated 10.3.1948 made by the Officers in the Government of Saurashtra Bhavnagar Administrative Council, recording the necessity of inclusion of all the lands, as specified in the Schedules to the Note within Gamtal, Schedule-A of the Note listed out all the lands acquired for Krushnanagar, acres 35 gunthas was included in the list.
(iii) In the present case Survey Nos.233 and 234 were made Kami from Simtal and were added to Gamtal on 21.4.1948 only, meaning thereby on the date of passing of Hajoori Tharav on 19.1.1948, the subject land was not within the Municipality limits of Bhavnagar.
(iv) As per the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Palitana Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 645, the Entry No.1950 had become final, and therefore, could not be disturbed. Accordingly, the total area of various survey numbers, including Survey No.470/1 must total up to 952 acres. As per the Village Form No.7/12 in respect of Survey No.470/1, which was prepared on the basis of Entry No.1950 showed that the area of Survey No.470/1 was 58 acres and 22 gunthas. Therefore, whether the subject Survey No.234 was in the inventory or not, was irrelevant and the entitlement of total lands as narrated in Entry No.1950 along with the abstract of Village Form No.7/12 totaling 952 acres cannot be gone into by any Court or authority.
(iv) The scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction with regard to the impugned order passed by the GRT is even otherwise limited and the Court would not reappreciate the facts or examine the disputed questions of facts beyond the scope of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, rendering statutory remedy of filing the suit meaningless.
(v) The petitioner Bhavnagar Mahanagar Palika has no locus or even a prima facie title to make claim over the subject land, as the subject land was added to Gamtal vide the order dated 21.4.1948.Even the Resolution dated 10.8.1965 of Government of Gujarat did not confer any right on the Municipal Corporation in respect of the land which came to be included within its limits after 19.1.1948.