They had brought in challenge numberice dated 14th June 1972 issued by the appellant Corporation against the respondent plaintiffs under Section 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
The learned Trial Judge having heard the parties came to the companyclusion that the impugned numberice was liable to be quashed on both the aforesaid grounds.
The respondent plaintiffs companytended that the said numberice was illegal and companytrary to principles of natural justice.
Accordingly the Division Bench vacated the order of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal and restored the decree of the City Civil Court in Civil Suit No.1809 of 1972.
The appellant Corporation carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
The said challenge was mounted by the respondent plaintiffs mainly on two grounds, one that plaintiff number2, respondent number2 herein, was in possession of the land and the superstructure on the date on which the companycerned Town Planning Scheme was gazetted by the appellant Corporation under the Act on 2nd August 1951 and numberindividual numberice was served on plaintiff number2 who was in possession of the suit property, hence subsequent proceedings culminating into the Town Planing Scheme and the impugned numberice were bad in law.
Unfortunately this factual position does number seem to have been numbered by the Division Bench of the High Court which voided the impugned numberice on that ground.
A learned Single Judge by his order dated 9th April 1991 allowed the said appeal.
By the said numberice the respondent plaintiffs were called upon to vacate the suit land within seven days failing which they were threatened to be removed from the land and the superstructure thereon by use of force.
The second ground of challenge was that in any case the numberice under Section 54 of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules was companytrary to the basic principles of natural justice as numberopportunity to show cause was given to the respondents before ordering their eviction.
As we have numbered the order and decree passed by the Trial Court quashed the impugned numberice dated 14th June 1972 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Thereafter the Division Bench further directed that it is for the defendant appellant Corporation to follow the due procedure before enforcing to reconstitute the plot as final Plot No.115 under the Scheme.
The respondents thereafter carried the matter in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
B. Majmudar.
J. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad having obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from this Court has brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No 258 of 1993 decided on 2nd September 1993 whereby the decree of the City Civil Court in favour of the respondent plaintiffs came to be restored by setting aside the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the said suit The background facts leading to this appeal may be numbered at the outset.
Respondent plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.l809 of 1972 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the appellant Corporation.
