IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.916 of 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3359 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11196 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11200 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11226 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.917 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3427 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7747 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.918 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3424 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7748 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.919 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3447 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7749 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.919 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3447 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7749 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.920 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3421 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7750 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.921 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3435 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7753 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.922 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3424 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7752 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.923 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3368 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7755 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.924 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3432 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7756 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.925 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3420 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7757 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.926 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3362 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7758 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.927 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3376 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7760 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.928 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3437 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7759 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.929 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3366 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7761 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.930 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3441 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7763 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.931 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3360 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7762 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.932 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3361 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7764 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.933 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3428 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7765 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.934 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3364 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7766 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.935 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3436 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7770 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.936 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3426 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7771 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.937 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3434 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7769 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.938 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3363 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7772 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.939 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3443 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7773 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.940 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3372 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7775 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.941 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3367 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7774 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.942 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3365 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7776 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.943 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3374 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7777 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.944 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3375 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7778 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.945 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3369 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7779 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.946 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3373 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7780 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.947 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3371 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7781 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.948 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3378 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7783 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.949 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3380 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7782 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.950 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3423 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7785 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.951 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3353 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7784 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.952 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3342 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7786 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.953 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3442 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7787 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.954 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3393 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7788 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.955 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3344 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7789 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.956 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3446 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7790 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.957 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3518 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7791 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.958 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3410 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7792 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.959 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3439 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7793 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.960 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3433 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7794 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.961 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3386 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7795 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.962 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3476 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7796 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.963 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3425 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7798 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.964 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3377 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7800 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.965 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3562 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7801 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.966 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3343 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7802 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.967 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3429 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7803 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.968 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3337 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7806 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.969 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3444 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7804 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.970 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3431 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7807 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.971 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3449 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7809 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.972 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3448 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7808 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.973 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3438 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7810 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.974 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3430 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7811 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.975 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3370 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7812 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.976 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3445 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7813 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.977 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3440 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7814 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.983 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3337 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7834 OF 1997 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.987 OF 1997 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3525 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7848 OF 1997 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.R.TRIPATHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : YES -------------------------------------------------------------- SEVAKRAM PRABHUDAS Versus DEPUTY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER (V) -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SB VAKIL for Appellants in all the LPAs except LPA Nos.952, 966, 955, 951, 954, 958, 962, 957, 987, 965 and 949 of 1997 wherein MR BS PATEL appears for appellants. MR BHASKAR TANNA, Sr.Counsel with MR MR PRANAV G DESAI for Deputy Municipal Commissioner (V), Municipal Corpora- of the City of Vadodara, respondents nos.1 and 2 respectively. MR AJ DESAI, ld.AGP for the Commissioner of Police, Baroda Police Commissionerate, respondent no.3. -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA and MR.JUSTICE R.R.TRIPATHI Date of decision:6th/Aug /2001 COMMON CAV JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA) This batch of 64 Letters Patent Appeals by the original petitioners in the concerned respective Special Civil Applications is directed against the common judgment and order dated 7th August 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a group of 114 Special Civil Applications was decided. 2. The respondent, i.e. Municipal Corporation of City of Vadodara served notices upon the applicants in April 1997 requiring them to remove the encroachments made by them within 15 days of the receipt of the notices, failing which, the Municipal Corporation itself would remove the encroachments at their expenses. According to the contents of these notices, temporary licences were given to the appellants by the Municipal Corporation for placement of cabin/larry/hand cart etc. and the period of licence had expired in December 1988 and March 1989 and therefore, they were liable to be removed in view of the scheme framed pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. 3. Whereas such notices had been issued by the Municipal Corporation of City of Vadodara in view of the scheme framed pursuant to the directions given by the Honourable Court, we find it necessary to give some details in this regard as under: (i) Special Civil Application No.4418 of 1982 filed by 26 petitioners before this Court against the Municipal Corporation of the City of Vadodara and two others was decided by judgment and order rendered on 23rd Dec.1985. In this petition, the prayer was for restraining the respondents from removing the larries of the petitioner from the existing places unless the Municipal Corporation provides suitable alternative place for keeping the said larries on permanent basis to the petitioners. (ii) Against the decision dated 23rd Dec.1985 in Special Civil Application No.4418 of 1982, Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court wherein leave to appeal was granted and the Civil Appeals Nos.1881 to 1897 of 1986 were disposed of by the Supreme Court on 2nd May 1986 in the following terms: "1. The petitioners/Appellants undertake to this Court that they shall remove their hand-carts and/or gallas, Cabins, etc. on or before December 31,. 1986. However, this undertaking by the appellants/petitioners will be subject to clause (2) below. Such undertakings should mention the exact places of their present trading. The undertakings to be filed by July 14, 1986. 2. The appellants/petitioners, however, will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in respect of locations of the area or the places in the trading zones where the appellants/petitioners and other hawkers will be permitted to carry on their trade in the Final Scheme. 3. The Municipal Corporation of Baroda shall give an opportunity to the appellants/petitioners to make their representations and will take them into consideration when it fixed hawking and non-hawking zones, in the Final Scheme. 4. The Municipal Corporation, Baroda, should fix such zones expeditiously and in any case on or before December 15, 1986. 5. The Interim Scheme as approved by the Surat cases in clause (5) of the Surat matters may be implemented subject to the modification that clause (4) of the Baroda Interim Scheme shall be deleted. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- (R.S.Pathak, J.) Sd/- R.B.Misra, J.) Sd/- (G.L. Oza, J.)" (iii) After the above order was passed by the Supreme Court notices were issued inviting suggestions/ representations from the interested parties. Notice dt.22.3.1987 was also published in news papers inviting the general public and hawkers to give their statements, objections and suggestions for the scheme of hawking and non-hawking zones. The scheme was thereafter finalised and adopted by the Corporation. Special Civil Application No.3138/88 was also filed challenging this scheme but this petition was along with other cognate petitions were rejected by the Division Bench of this Court on 5th Aug.1988. Yet on the plea that the provisions of the scheme have not been worked out appropriately and that suitable places had not been provided within the hawking zone, the Civil Court was approached by the holders of larry/handcart/gallas/ pathariwalas/cabins etc. and an injunction order was passed in Civil Suit No.1761 of 1989 by the Court of 6th Jt.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara. (iv) Civil Revision Application No.281 of 1989 in this matter was then decided by this Court on 12th April 1989. (v) Against this order dated 12th April 1989 passed in Civil Revision Application No.281 of 1989, a Special Leave Petition No.5465 of 1989 was filed by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation before the Supreme Court and this time, the Supreme Court passed an order on 3rd May 1989 dismissing the suit itself and that all interlocutory orders made therein shall stand dismissed. However, the assurance given by the Municipal Corporation was recorded to the effect that, within a week from the date of application appropriate hawking licences in the hawking zone shall be issued by the Municipal Corporation upon applications being made for such licences. (vi) On behalf of the appellants, it has been given out that on 7th June 1976, a circular was issued by the Govt.of Gujarat not to remove the cabins without giving alternative facilities and despite this, when the cabin holders were sought to be removed, they filed Special Civil Application No.7396 of 1988 apprehending forcible eviction and obtained interim orders restraining their eviction. This Special Civil Application No.7396 of 1988 was decided by the High Court on 7th August 1996 by the following order: "For the reasons and conclusions arrived at in Special Civil Application No.7636 of 1988 decided on 22/02/1996, these Special Civil Applications are rejected. However, it is made clear that if respondent Corporation takes decision to evict the petitioners from the subject premises, that shall be done only in accordance with law. They shall not be dispossessed for a period of 15 days from the date of order of eviction. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs." (vii) On 26th Dec.1996 in Misc.Civil Application No.2155 of 1996, the aforesaid order dated 7th Aug.1996 was modified so as to read the words, "from the date of the service of the order of eviction" instead of "from the date of the order of eviction." (viii) Briefly stated, this is the history of previous litigation and in this context the impugned notices were issued in April 1997 and the reference which has been made in the notices with regard to the scheme framed pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court is the scheme dated 21st April 1987 prepared by Shri M.K.Desai, Retd.District and Sessions Judge, Baroda, that is a report for hawking and non-hawking zones for the city of Baroda as per page No.755 onwards in the record of Letters Patent Appeal No.916 of 1997. On the basis of this scheme, notices were issued against which Special Civil Applications were filed and the same have been rejected by the impugned common judgment and order. (ix) It also appears that in Misc.Civil Application No.1656 of 1997 in Letters Patent Appeal No.916 of 1997, some interim order was passed. The grievance was raised that this order had been flouted and therefore, Misc.Civil Application was filed seeking contempt proceedings and in the contempt proceedings the orders were passed by this Court on 5th, 19th, 20th and 23rd Aug.1999 and against such orders, Appeal under Sec.19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act was filed before the Supreme Court and this Civil Appeal No.4280 of 2000 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. (x) When these Letters Patent Appeals came up before us, we found that Civil Application No.11196/98 dt.30.11.98 on the basis of events subsequent to 7.8.97, i.e. the date of the impugned common order was pending. We, therefore, passed an order on 24.7.2000 that final order on this amendment application shall be passed along with the final judgment in the main appeal and Municipal Corporation may file the reply in the meantime. The Municipal Corporation placed on record the affidavit-in-reply dt.17.2.1998. While arguments in these appeals were going on, the appellants filed further draft amendment dt.26.7.2000 in the Civil Application No.11166 of 1998 and we again ordered on 26.7.2000 on this draft amendment that the same shall be considered along with the main appeal. However, the parties were allowed to address arguments on the amendment while arguing the appeals. 4. Mr.S.B.Vakil appearing on behalf of the appellants in the concerned Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the respective Special Civil Applications made the following submissions on facts: (i) After the partition, the appellants and their predecessors came to India as displaced persons and they were given the land for carrying on the business in the year 1947. Each of the appellants was a tenant of a plot of land admeasuring 5'x5' and the Municipal Corporation had issued trade licences to the appellants for carrying on the business thereon. The land was situated in Padmavati Chaugan in Laheripura area of Ward No.1 of the Municipal Corporation over which the cabins were constructed. (ii) His Highness of Baroda and the officers of the Baroda Government allowed them or their predecessors-in-title unconditionally, without any time limit and initially free on open plot of land admeasuring more than 5000 sq.ft. to the East of Sursagar Tank, which area is popularly known as Laheripura Maidan. (iii) The Collector and District Magistrate, Baroda issued a letter dated 9th March 1953 that in order to accommodate as many refugees as they could, and to put them to least inconvenience, it was decided to increase the area of plot near Darbar Hall by reducing the road width to 25' as per the plans of the Municipality and 48 persons were to be accommodated on these plots near the Darbar Hall. (iv) A letter was addressed to the President, Hawkers Association, Baroda. (v) A letter dated 19th March 1953 was sent by the Chief Officer of Baroda Burough Municipality to the appellant Sevagram Prabhudas stating that, accommodation of 48 persons at Laheripura, 20 opposite Nyay Mandir, Padmavati Devi Chaugan and 46 near Nazarbaug footpath and the remaining at the site opposite to Santadevi Talkies was granted by the Collector on 12.3.1953 and that the list of persons to whom the said shops were to be allotted should be given. (vi) After the integration of the former State of Baroda with the Union of India and its merger with the province of Bombay, a conference was held on 22nd March 1953 in the office of the Collector, Baroda, between the representatives of the aforesaid displaced persons to continue their business in the Laheripura Maidan including the Padmavati Chaugan, the Collector, the Dist. Supdt. of Police and the Chief Officer of the then Burough Municipality of Baroda and it was unanimously decided that the displaced persons may continue their business as before and that each of such persons should pay "ground rent" at the concessional rate of one anna per sq.ft. for the land allotted to them. (vii) A notice dated 21st April 1953 was then issued by the Chief of the Baroda Burough Municipality informing the allottees including the appellants that they should prepare their wooden cabins after submitting rough plan and getting it approved from the Municipality. (viii) Separate and specific plots of land of definite area were allotted to different persons on conditions that good, uniform and attractive stalls should be constructed by them. (ix) All such displaced persons including the petitioners constructed costly permanent stalls on the respective plots allotted to them. (x) In August 1957, the then Burough Municipality of Baroda increased the ground rent from one anna to two annas per sq.ft. (xi) All the displaced persons including the appellants objected to the said increased rent but were compelled to pay the said increased ground rent. (xii) The rent of two annas per sq.ft. was again sought to be increased to three annas per sq.ft. and such increase was also objected to. However, the arrears of ground rent were paid under protest at the rate of three annas per sq.ft. for the period upto May 1955. (xiii) The then Burough Municipality of Baroda again tried to increase the rent in excess of three annas per sq.ft. (xiv) As the dispute arose between the Burough Municipality and the aforesaid displaced persons including the appellants as to whether the said displaced persons were the tenants or licensees in respect of the lands in their possession and occupation as well as with regard to the quantum of rent payable by them, one Gyanchand Hardasmal and three others for themselves and on behalf of 270 other persons, including the appellant doing business in Laheripura Maidan including Padmavati Chaugan filed Special Civil Suit No.1073 of 1958 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda against the then Burough Municipality of Baroda for a declaration that the Municipality had no right to recover any rent or possession of the land let out to them from any of the plaintiffs and that in the alternative, for a declaration that the Municipality had no right to recover the rent at a rate higher than two annas per sq.ft. and the consequential injunction. (xv) This Special Civil Suit No.1073 of 1958 was dismissed by the trial Court. (xvi) Shri Gyanchand Hardasmal and other plaintiffs filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit in the District Court at Baroda being Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 1962. (xvii) The Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda who heard the appeal partly allowed the appeal on 31st August 1963 declaring that each of the plaintiffs was a tenant of the plot which had been allotted to him and that the Municipality was not entitled to evict the plaintiffs or any of them by any summary mode of eviction. (xviii) It appears that there were three appeals against the judgment and decree in three suits of identical nature and all the three appeals were partly allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court was substituted by the following decree: "It is hereby declared that each of the plaintiffs is in possession of the plot allotted to him as a tenant and the defendant no.1 Municipality is not entitled to evict them by summary mode of eviction. The respondent no.1 is hereby restrained from evicting the plaintiffs or any of them except by due process of law." (xix) Against this decision, the then Burough Municipality of Baroda had filed appeal in this Court and the Second Appeal No.160 of 1964 was dismissed. (xx) The appellants' case is that the shop was registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Inspite of the decree passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, the Municipal authorities failed and refused to recognise the plaintiffs including the the appellants as tenants and therefore, the amounts of rent was deposited in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda for the period upto 31st July 1966 under intimation to the Municipal Corporation authorities. The Municipal authorities withdrew the rent as was deposited except for the