Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance When Financially Secure and Dishonest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Boycott of Courts Violates Litigants’ Right to Speedy Justice: Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Proviso Cannot Defeat the Main Provision Which Allows Amendment ‘At Any Stage of Proceedings’: Karnataka High Court Knife Used To Enlarge Child’s Vagina Before Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Death Sentence In ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Case 47 BNSS | Mere Mention of Offence and Sections Is Not Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest: Allahabad High Court Quashes Arrest for Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court Information Commission Has No Power To Impose Blanket Ban On RTI Applications: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Restriction On Filing Future RTIs Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case Drug And Cosmetic Act | Sample Testing Must Be Completed Within 60 Days Under Rule 45 – Delay Vitiates Entire Prosecution: Bombay High Court 156(3) CrPC | Handwriting Expert's Report May Not Be Final – But It’s Sufficient to Initiate Investigation: Delhi High Court 217 CrPC | Alteration of Charges Is Not a Mere Formality: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Maintenance Is Not a Charity, It's an Implied Right: Chhattisgarh High Court Cancels Gift Deed for Denial of Care to Elderly Donors Minor Inconsistencies Can't Overturn Disability Claims: Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on HDFC Justice Must Not Be a Casualty of Clerical Oversight: AP High Court Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court Nomination Has Sanctity—Succession Certificate Not Mandatory When Valid Nominee Exists: Supreme Court in GPF Dispute

High Court of Gujarat Upholds Nidhi Cooperative Society’s Right to Land under Town Planning Scheme: Obligation of Respondent Authority to Obey Orders and Fulfill Statutory Obligations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment that reinforces the sanctity of legal entitlements and obligations, the High Court of Gujarat has delivered a decisive verdict in the long-standing dispute involving Nidhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Snehanjali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

The bench, comprising Honourable The Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Honourable Mr. Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, ruled in favor of the Nidhi Cooperative Society, affirming their rightful claim to land allocated under the Town Planning Scheme (Thaltej) No. 1. The court directed the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) to fulfill its statutory obligations by implementing the scheme and handing over possession of Final Plot No. 65 to the Nidhi Cooperative Society.

In a strong observation underscoring the authority’s responsibility, the court stated, “It was, thus, the obligation of the respondent authority to obey the orders and fulfill its statutory obligations to allot the land to the petitioner.” This statement emphasizes the court’s stance on the adherence to legal commitments and the enforcement of rightful claims.

The case, which has seen multiple rounds of litigation over the years, centered on the disputed possession of Final Plot No. 65. Snehanjali Cooperative Society was found to have made unauthorized and illegal constructions on the said plot, leading to a series of legal battles. The High Court’s decision upholds previous rulings, including those by the Apex Court, affirming the entitlement of Nidhi Cooperative Society.

Additionally, the court provided a resolution pathway for Snehanjali Cooperative Society, offering them the option to either vacate the disputed plot or compensate by paying for an alternative plot identified as Final Plot No. 100-P.

Representatives from both societies and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were present during the proceedings. Senior Advocates Mr. M.B. Gandhi and Mr. Mihir Joshi were among the legal counsels representing the parties involved.

 

Date of Decision: 10 November 2023

MOHINIBEN SURENDRASINH CHAUHAN Versus NIDHI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

Latest Legal News