FA/588/1982 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 588 of 1982 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================================= VIMLADEVI, WIDOW OF RAMSING BABUSING & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR VYAS for MR BHARAT J SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1-2. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/588/1982 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff against the Judgment dated 30.03.1982 passed by the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, Court No.9 in Civil Suit No.1176/1981. 2. The case of the appellant was that the plaintiffs are in possession of two premises, where they are carrying on their business since last several years. The said premises was in use and occupation of one Govindbhai Mathurbhai as per the Municipal and Government record. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation claimed to be the ownership thereof. No legal proceedings were taken as to how the said premises became that of the defendant. The rent of the premises was recovered by the said Govindbhai Oza. Without commencing any proceedings and without giving any opportunity to represent the case, the defendants gave a notice under Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Hence, the said FA/588/1982 3/5 JUDGMENT notice was challenged by the original plaintiffs by filing abovesaid suit. 3. In the said suit, no written statement is filed by the original defendants. 4. After having heard both the sides, the Learned Trial Court has delivered the aforesaid order giving rise to file present First Appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 6. I have gone through the impugned delivered by the Learned Trial Court and the evidence on record. The Learned Trial Court in paragraph nos.9 and 10 of its judgment has discussed in detailed and relied upon the decision given in First Appeal No.608 of 1975 on 19.07.1978 by the Court, wherein the Court has held that the provisions of Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 does not stand repealed and discussed the relevant portion of the said order in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court has also relied upon the decision FA/588/1982 4/5 JUDGMENT given in Appeal From Order No.267 of 1978 on 31.01.1980, wherein the Court has held that the provisions of Town Planning Act do not stand repealed and discussed the relevant portion of the said order in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court has discussed that it is clear that the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rule are not corresponding law, therefore, there is no express repeal by Section 19 of the provisions of Section 54 of the Town Planning Act and Rule 27 of the Town Planning Rules. The learned Trial Court has also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1971 SC 815 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Shiv Kumar. After detailed discussion, the learned Trial Court has held that the notice cannot be said to be illegal bad and without jurisdiction and, hence, the learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 in affirmative. FA/588/1982 5/5 JUDGMENT 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court and the evidence on record. 8. Since there is no substance in any of the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in this appeal calling for any interference with the finding of the trial Court. 9. In the result, the appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil