AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned advocate Mr. Asim Pandya for the petitioner.
Notice returnable on 01.06.2017.
It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of communication dated 24th April, 2017, the retail outlet of the petitioner has been demolished. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, contends that communication dated 24th April, 2017, pursuant to which the demolition has taken place, is without authority of law. The communication no where stipulates that the property in question shall be demolished. The prayer in the petition therefore is that since the action of demolition of the property in question is without authority of law, the respondent corporation should be directed to restore the status quo ante. Pending the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner prayed that though the demolition has taken place, the possession of the petitioner qua the land in question be protected. It is Mr. Pandya''s case that the outlet has been operating since 1959, and therefore because of operation
of the outlet since several years, the possession, particularly when the abolition itself is without authority of law, be protected.
My attention is drawn to the communications dated 02.07/08.2011, 12.04.2011, 30.06.2011 and 29.06.2011, by which it is sought to be canvassed that in view of the fact that permission has been granted to operate the outlet, the possession of the land in question should be protected.
Learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has sought to dispute this proposition by drawing attention of the court to sections 229 and 231 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Mr. Bhatt contends that without permission of the Corporation, nothing shall be set up on a public street without permission of the Commissioner. In the event, the Commissioner finds the set up without permission, the same shall be abolished without notice.
From the communications on record, particularly the communications dated 30.06.2011 29.06.2011 and 24.06.2011, it is further contended that it was evident from such communications that the site in question was reserved for development plan. It is evident from the pleadings in the petition, particularly from para 2.3 of the petition, that there is dispute regarding ownership between the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the State Government. Merely because the dispute regarding ownership of the land arises between the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the State Government and particularly in view of the internal communication dated 26.04.1996, no right to possession of land in question is prima facie established.
In view of the above, status quo as to the possession of the land in question, is refused.