KUMUDINIBEN D CHOPDE Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So a party to a devise of frustrating the provision of a welfare legislation. [In this case the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 ] Deprive the society of its legitimate share and take it nearly impossible to carry out public housing scheme envisaged under the relevant provision of law. Thereafter invoke the provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and pray protect us and permit us to retain our ill-gotten fruits. In such a situation not to exercise the powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would amount to denial of any of the fundamental rights or any other rights of the petitioners? Further question arises why and for what purpose powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution are conferred upon the High Court and with what objects in view they are to be exercised.

(2.) There are 31 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 7130 of 1985 while Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1986 is filed by one petitioner only who is also respondent No. 3 in Special Civil Application No. 7130 of 1985. Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 of special Civil Application No. 7130 of 1985 are the original owners of the land who along with other co-owners have purported to transfer the land to respondent No. 3 of Special Civil Application No. 7130 of 1985. By execution of a chain of documents petitioners have been put into possession of the land. They have put up construction on the land which is sought to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation. Hence the petitions challenging the action of demolition on the ground that the same is not in accordance with law and it is violative of petitioners fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 996 of 1986 who is also respondent No. 3 in Special Civil Application No. 7130 of 1985 is hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3.

(3.) In view of the fact that common questions of law and fact arise in both these petitions at the request and with the consent of the parties both these matters have been heard together and they are being disposed of by a common judgment.