PUNAJI MOTIJI Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice at Annexure-D dtd.5/3/1997 issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under section 68 of the Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Town Planning Act for convenience) read with Rule 33 of the Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules for short ) and also to hold and declare that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has no authority, power or jurisdiction to recover the possession of the land bearing original Survey No.208, situated at Ghodasar, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad, from the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present petition, in nutshell, are as under :-

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the facts stated hereinabove and without expressing any opinion on merits with respect to right, title or interest of the subsequent purchasers in the land in question and whether any transaction with respect to the land bearing Survey No.208, after the Town Planning Scheme has become final, is nullity or not, solely on the ground that admittedly the petitioners have sold the land in question and therefore, they have no right, title or interest in the land in question and therefore, considering the decisions of Vallabhdas Nandlal Panchamiya Versus Mansukhlal Bhagwanji and another, reported in 1974 GLR 217 when the petitioners do not have any right, title or interest in the land in question, now they have no right to continue the litigation. As observed by this Court in the case of Vallabhdas Nandlal Panchamiya (supra) if the litigant is ceased to have any interest during the pendency of the litigation, it is difficult to say that his right to continue litigation exist even after his interest no longer subsisted. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on the aforesaid ground alone, present Special Civil Application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed without further entering into the merits of the case and/or without expressing any opinion on merits. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.