AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.Y. Kogje, J
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside demand raised by the respondent-GIDC in its notices dated 17.09.2019, 04.10.2019 as well as eviction notice dated 11.11.2019.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was originally allotted shade No.836 admeasuring 885 sq. mtrs. in GIDC, Chitra, Bhavnagar in the year 1988. At the relevant time, the petitioner had paid necessary amount which included price of shade consisting in the plot. The said amount of Rs.4,04,525/-was to be paid in installments. It is the case of the petitioner that out of Rs.4,04,525/-, the petitioner had paid more than Rs.2,75,000/-. However, the respondents were not issuing any statement of account about the payment made and what is outstanding and therefore, in the year 1994, proceedings under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1972 ("PPE Act" for short) were initiated, which was challenged before the Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar and by order dated 17.03.1994, the said eviction was set aside directing production of statement of account of outstanding of the petitioner. At that time, during the proceedings, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Again in the year 2007, the respondents initiated recovery of Rs.4,26,078/-, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Regular Civil Suit No.551 of 1994 and by order dated 08.06.2007, such recovery proceedings were set aside.
2.1 It is submitted that even as on date, the petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment.
However, the respondents are not giving any statement of account to justify their demand. Instead of furnishing statements, the petitioner is served with the notice for demand raised by respondent No.2, which is therefore challenged before this Court.
2.2 It is submitted that the respondents are now demanding sum to the tune of Rs.19,81,804/- and if the petitioner has to enter into one time settlement then the amount is Rs.11,24,604/-. Though such hefty amount is demanded, there is no justification of such amount to be paid by the petitioner.
2.3 It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property and there is no cause of action for the respondents to initiate action under the provisions of the PPE Act.
2.4 It is submitted that time and again, the petitioner had to knock doors of the Court for relief and at all the stages, Civil Court at Bhavnagar had interfered and quashed the action of the respondents for recovery against the petitioner.
Having considered submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is undoubted that the petitioner is the allottee of shade No.836, admeasuring 885 sq. mtrs. in GIDR, Chitra, Bhavnagar since 1988. From the pleadings of the petitioner himself, it appears that out of amount of Rs.4,04,525/- fixed at the relevant time, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2,75,000/-and thereafter, has entered into litigations at various stages against recovery proceedings. However, there is nothing on record to suggest the exact amount the petitioner has paid and/or that the petitioner has made full payment as was required in the year 1988. The Court is of the view that the respondent-GIDC being agency of State has invoked provisions of PPE Act and as being Government of Gujarat undertaking, was entitled to invoke the provisions of PPE Act. Once the provisions of the PPE Act are invoked, the Act itself provides for the procedure to be adopted by the authority for eviction and therefore, petition which is filed is against notice under Section 4(i) of the PPE Act dated 11.11.2019. The notice being provided under the Act itself, is required to be carried forward.
Today, in the midst of arguments, learned Advocate for the petitioner produces notice under Section 5(i) dated 03.01.2020. The said notice indicates that an amount of Rs.20,49,020/- is due and payable by the petitioner, failing which the proceedings will be initiated to vacate the premises on or before 04.02.2020. On one hand, as submitted by learned Advocate, the petitioner had stopped payment of the dues to the respondent-GIDC on account of the dispute on statement of account and on the other hand, the petitioner has continued to occupy the premises. The respondent-GIDC was therefore justified in initiating action. No illegality can be found in initiating the proceedings. It is open for the petitioner to put up his case and defend himself as the same is provided under the PPE Act.
Over and above, the provisions of the PPE Act itself provides for remedy in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the action and ultimate decision under the provisions of the PPE Act.
In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that no case is made out warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.