Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High Court

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