On 24.11.1987 Respondent No.2 indicated that T.P. Plot 695 is designated for neighbourhood garden, play ground, library etc.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
Mode by which the High Court has made the valuation has practically numberbasis.
On 09.12.1987 resolution was adopted by AUDA to allot lands to Respondent No.2 bearing Survey No.
On 16.07.1989 Respondent No.2 paid Rs.6,65,000/ .
of this land on companydition that part of this land will be used for purposes within the meaning of neighbourhood centre and assured AUDA that Respondent No.2 was prepared to purchase land bearing survey Nos.
10640 of 2000 is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
The decision was companymunicated to the President of Respondent No.2 Society vide letter No.
On 07.10.1989, by resolution No.
Respondent No.2 Society, mentioning its registration No.9675/86 made an application on 21.12.1989 signed by S. Jagadeesan requesting to reconsider the price and allot the land in response to cancellation of allotment.
189 and 190 Part and survey Nos.199/1, 2, 3 of Vastrapur at the price indicated by AUDA.
Land to Respondent No.2 Society.
Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Senior companynsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
The land was to be allotted subject to certain terms and companyditions, and the price was to be determined by the Chief Town Planner.
575/ ps.mt.
Survey Nos.199/1/2/3 of Vastrapur admeasuring 9208 sq.
On 19.01.1990 vide resolution No.63 AUDA reconsidered its earlier decision and decided to allot Plot Nos.694, 695 and 696 Bodakdev TP Scheme No.1/B, admeasuring 16,571 sq.
It is further stated in the said letter that the Society bearing registration No.9675/86 has paid the amount of more than Rs.6 lakhs and, therefore, they have preferential right over the land.
On 01.06.1990 Respondent No.2 took the possession of the land.
3082 and 3781 of 1991 culminating in the judgment dated 24.09.1991 of the fact that two other societies being Respondent number.
On 21.12.1989 Respondent No.2 claimed right to land.
540/ p.s.mt.
The High Court held that by impersonation office bearers of Respondent No.4 brought about the following companysequences Respondent No.4 secured allotment of land at the price determined in 1987 while it actually came into existence on 5th July 1990.
From the above events the High Court in its impugned judgment has companycluded that Respondent No.4 and its officers are guilty of having practiced fraud on AUDA as well as the High Court because Respondent No.4 has impersonated as Respondent No.2 Respondent No.4 has obtained possession of land on the basis of such impersonation from AUDA and for the price which had been paid by Respondent No.2 at the price prevailing the year 1987 much before Respondent No.4 was born.
Respondent No.4 suppressed this fact in earlier proceedings before the High Court resulting in the judgment dated 24.09.1991 and thus secured the judgment by practising fraud on the companyrt.
F.P. No.695 admeasuring 12516 sq.
mtrs of land possession whereof was taken by Respondent number4 after payment of price of Rs.26,70,600.
and further requested that they may be granted 4000 sq.
480/ p.s.mt.
from survey No.199 TPS Vastrapur.
On 21.07.1987 Respondent No.2 made a modified application for allotment of land stating that eventually about 150 Govt.
employees of various categories would be members of the Society.
Respondent No.3 was called New Sumangal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Taluka Daskroy bearing registration No.13338 which also cancelled on 9.12.1996.
mtrs of land, possession of which had been given to Respondent No.2 and price of Rs.6,65,000 and Rs.1,03,85,000 had been paid by Respondent number2 on 16.06.1989 and 30.05.1990 respectively.
And F. P. No.696 admeasuring 5239 sq.
It was also requested to fix the rate of the land at Rs.300/ per sq.
Based on instances of 3 residential plots in the the Bodakdev Scheme.
Calculated on that basis the High Court came to the companyclusion that on the basis of the price of land allotted to Mr. H.K. Khan the allotment was made at an unreasonable rate.
Respondent No.4 also took possession of 16571 sq.
Out of 54 members who were allotted plots by Respondent No.4, 42 persons had also been allotted plots by Government at Gandhi Nagar.
Respondent No.4 had taken possession of the land on the basis that it had 77 members while it had distributed plots only amongst 54 persons.
Impersonation by the office bearers of Respondent No.2 as those of Respondent No.
Respondent No.4 is called Sumangalam Cooperative Housing Society, Bodakdev and bears registration No.1492.
of land from Survey No.189 and 190 from TPS Vastrapur, and 9208 sq.
Suppression before the High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.
2 and 3 existed and the land had been allotted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority AUDA to Respondent No.2 and number Respondent No.4 It may be numbered that Respondent No.2 was called Sumangalam Cooperative Housing Society, Gandhi Nagar bearing registration No.9675 which was cancelled on 9.12.1996.
land from F.P. No.695 TPS Bodakdev 8693 sq.
on lease for 90 years.
50 89 90 , AUDA resolved to refund the amount deposited by the Respondent No.2 and to dispose of the lands by public auction.
Background facts vis vis Respondent No.2 are relevant On 16.07.1987 Respondent No.2 made an application for allotment of land admeasuring 6651 sq.
Similarly position vis a vis Respondent No.4 are relevant On 05.07.1990 Respondent No.4 came into being under Registration No.14292.
from F.P. No.707 TPS Bodakdev 12514 sq.
On 16.07.1988 Respondent No.2 requested for the review of the price charged.
694, 695, 696 as on 1 3 1990 will be Based on H.K. Khans F.P. 695/17 sale of a of a developed small companymercial plot.
Estate Vashi/2267/16836 dated 10.12.1987.
On 13.05.1990 Respondent No.2 paid Rs.1,03,85,000 to AUDA by Cheque No.1426322 of State Bank of Saurashtra and AUDA issued its receipt No.44414 dated 30.5.1990.
And Bodakdev Final Plot No.694 admeasuring 2739 sq.
On 26.02.1991 AUDA passed a resolution in its 123rd meeting allotting 3923 sq.
It was alleged that there were several irregularities and illegalities in companynection with the allotment of land to Sumangalam Co operative Housing Society Ltd. The High Court entertained several other civil applications and passed the impugned judgment inter alia holding that there were several irregularities and illegalities companymitted in the allotment of land.
189, 190 Paiki of Vastrapur admeasuring 8693 sq.
WITH A. 3987/2004, 3988 3989/2004, 3990/2004, 3991/2004 AND 3992 3993/2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court which suo motu registered a writ petition on the basis of the companyies of documents purported to have been received from one Piyush Soni.
Based on instances of F.P. 109 of Thaltej T.P. Scheme which is diagonally opposite to F.P. 694, 695 695 and 696.
Broadly the issues addressed by the High Court in the impugned judgment are the parties are described as per their position in the High Court Mix up of identities between Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4.
The judgment of the High Court in SCA No.
