“Perhaps the remedy and the right are lost after ten years…During the hearing, Justice Vishen stated, “Unless you demonstrate your rights, the court is not inclined to entertain this petition.”
As newly elected Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan challenged a Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) notice over the alleged encroachment on a site owned by the civic body.
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday noted that it is not inclined to accept the appeal. Maulik Nanavati, the panel advocate for the VMC, has now been summoned by Justice Sangeeta Vishen to appear in court. “Perhaps the remedy and the right are gone after ten years…During the hearing, Justice Vishen stated, “You demonstrate your right; otherwise, the court is not inclined to entertain this petition.”
The court was informed that in March 2012, the former cricket player had submitted a proposal to buy a piece of land in Vadodara. June 2012 saw the VMC authorize the
On June 6, however, two days after the results of the Lok Sabha election, Pathan received a notice from the VMC’s land estate department informing him that the application had been sent to the state government for approval to lease the land for 99 years under a special case without holding an auction.
The plea was denied by the urban development department on June 9, 2014, and Pathan was informed of this, the court was informed.
The contested land lies next to Pathan’s house in the Tandalja neighborhood of Vadodara, where he was once an all-round player. He was declared the winner of the Lok Sabha elections, the results of which were declared on June 4, from the Baharampur constituency in the West Bengal district of Murshidabad.
The Vadodara city authority said in its notice that Pathan persisted in encroaching on the land in spite of the correspondence. In its notice, the civic authority also gave Pathan instructions to remove the encroachment as soon as possible. He had a fortnight to remove the encroachment. The residential plot’s assessed value in 2012 was Rs 5.6 crore.
Judge Vishen made the following oral comment on Thursday, following the submissions: “The decision (of the VMC) was never communicated to you (in writing).” It was not you who received the copy (of the resolution). Will it give rise to any rights in your favor in such a case? The firm made the decision to allocate the land internally. It doesn’t become a decision granting you any rights unless and unless it is informed to you.
In response, Justice Vishen said that Pathan too did nothing for ten years, notwithstanding Oza’s suggestion of political meddling and his claim that the VMC’s encroachment removal order was delivered few days after the election results. “Perhaps the remedy and the right are gone after ten years…Judge Vishen said, “You demonstrate your right; if not, the court is not inclined to consider this petition.
Oza argued that once the VMC passed a resolution approving the allotment, the allotment order should have been served to Pathan. While the VMC chose to go to the state government, “legally they should not have gone,” adding that “law doesn’t require it to be sent to the state government,” he did so by citing sections of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, particularly those that deal with the disposal of municipal property. Oza acknowledged that Pathan had not received the VMC order authorizing the allotment.
The VMC’s panel advocate has been asked to be told to appear in court, and the court has scheduled a follow-up session for this Friday.