'High-Handed': Gujarat High Court Slams Municipality For Demolishing Shop Despite Pendency Of Issue Before Court

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 10) stayed the operation of a notice issued by the Khambhat Nagar Palika in district Anand asking a man to vacate his shop, which was granted on a lease for 9 years after winning a bid, failing which action for removal of possession would be initiated. The court stayed the order after it was told that part of the shop had been demolished today morning, despite the respondent-municipality being aware of the petitioner's application seeking stay on coercive action. The court thus expressed its surprise at the "high handed action" of the municipality. It also orally remarked that demolition action cannot be issued "on a whim", specially when the petitioner was a successful bidder and was granted the shop on a lease.Justice Mauna M Bhatt was hearing an application seeking a stay on the effect, implementation and execution of a communication dated 6-10-2025 issued by chief officer Khambat Nagar Palika where petitioner had been directed to vacate possession of the shop in 3 days failing which action of removal of possession will be initiated.The court in its order dictated:"This court is surprised that why this high handed action is taken by Nagar Palika despite having knowledge of civil application preferred by petitioner."On the respondent's argument that auction purchased by the petitioner was fraudulent act by municipal councillors at the relevant time and the land on which present shop is situated was not meant for auction, the court said:"It is noticed that the petitioner participating in the auction and having been being declared as a successful bidder, there is a registered lease agreement entered into between the parties for a period of 9 years and this has been signed by officers of nagar palika. For the alleged fraudulent act, no action has been taken against officers who entered into lease with the petitioner. The fact remained that the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and has paid the considering and without cancelling of lease agreement, the action for demolition is taken that too after filing of the civil application. The submission of the respondent that by subsequent resolution 2022 the lease agreement has been cancelled by passing resolution is not acceptable to this court, when the lease is a registered document. What is being expected from Nagar Palika is to make an application before this court before making any action of demolition. In view of the above the effect and implementation of the notice dated 6-10-2025 is stayed till further orders".The application was filed in a 2024 pending petition challenging a resolution issued by the municipal body as well as an order rejecting petitioner's appeal by the concerned authority, on which the court had last year issued notice and notice had also been issued on plea for interim relief. The counsel for the applicant submitted that petitioner is lesse of a shop located in Trambavati complex. He said that the said shop was allotted after participating in an auction in 2020. Once the applicant participated in the auction, a resolution was passed by executive committee of nagar palika permitting construction to be done by the applicant and that the property was on lease for nine years. The lease is to end on January 31, 2029.However, he argued, during the lease period another resolution was passed by general body of respondent municipality on 30-4-2022 wherein the earlier resolution was cancelled. The reasons given in the resolution was regarding some allegation involving parties and the resolution also cancelled the lease agreement. The counsel submitted that this resolution of 2022 was challenged before the high court in a separate petition, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on the ground of petitioner having an alternative remedy. He had accordingly preferred an appeal which was rejected by order dated 19-9-2024. Against this order and resolution the petitioner preferred the main petition in 2024 before high court. However during the pendency of the main petition, a notice was issued directing petitioner to vacate the premises and after serving copy of the present stay application to the other side (respondents) action of demolition has been taken on 10-10-2025 morning despite the respondent municipality having knowledge that applicant has moved plea seeking stay of notice. The counsel said that this action was taken without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therefore notice dated 6-10-2025 be stayed and appropriate compensation be granted to the petitioner.As per the respondent's counsel the 2020 resolution was cancelled on account of fraudulent act of parties involved. He said that in this case the land has been auctioned by constructing the shop and being given to the petitioner. The court noted that the respondent's counsel could not dispute a that lease agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and respondent nagar palika and the petitioner was given a...

'High-Handed': Gujarat High Court Slams Municipality For Demolishing Shop Despite Pendency Of Issue Before Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags