Jetunbibi Husenbhai Malek vs Sarat Gram Panchayat and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

This matter has been called out twice. Learned advocate Ms. Rukhsana M.Pathan is not present even on the second call.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Harnish V. Darji appearing for respondent no.1.

In this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original plaintiff seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 3rd September 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast TrackCourt No.2, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.339/2000,whereby the Fast Track Court No.2, Vadodara dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein confirming the judgment and order passed by the 6th Jt.Civil Judge (S.D.),Vadodara dated 30th November 2000 below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.369/1999.

Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarised as under :-

The petitioner - original plaintiff instituted RegularCivil Suit No.369/1999 against respondent no.1 SararGram Panchayat and respondent no.2 Sarpanch of the saidGram Panchayat.

It appears that the Panchayat passed a resolution dated 18th May 1996 allotting land in favour of the petitioner for carrying on business. After the allotment, the petitioner constructed a cabin on the said land and started carrying on small business. Annual rent of Rs.100=00 was fixed. Apprehending eviction at the end of the Panchayat authorities, the petitioner preferred suit and prayed for injunction.

It appears that the lease was only for a period of oneyear and subsequently, there after, it was not extendedat any point of time. Since the period of lease was not extended, the possession on the said land became unlawful and that is the reason why the Panchayat decided to take over the possession by evicting the petitioner from the land in question.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there isno prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and her possession as on today can be termed as unlawful becausethe lease period was not extended by the Panchayat.

In view of the fact that there are concurrent findings ofboth the Courts below, I am not inclined to disturb the concurrent findings of facts in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia.

In this view of the matter, I am left with no other option but to reject this petition.

The petition is hereby rejected with no order as to cost.Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forth with. Rule is discharged.

It is informed by Mr. Darji, learned advocate appearing for the Panchayat that since a long period of time the cabin isclosed and the petitioner is not carrying on any businessin the said cabin.

However, it is clarified that if at all the Panchayat wants to take over the possession as this Court has vacated therelief, before taking over the possession a notice may beissued to the petitioner giving her time of fifteen days tohandover the possession of the land.