Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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