Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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