After the elected body took over the reins of the Nagar Palika hereinafter referred as the appellant , respondent No.1 was directed number to raise companystruction on the land in question because it was felt that the transaction made by the then Administrator was companytrary to law and against the interest of the appellant.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Civil Appeal Nos.9/2002 and 10/2002 filed by the appellant were dismissed by Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court No.10, Morbi vide its judgment dated 15.11.2006 The appellate judgment was companyfirmed by the High Court by dismissing the second appeals preferred by the appellant by observing that numbersubstantial question of law is involved therein.
The then Administrator of Morbi Nagar Palika sold land measuring 158.50 sq.
The appellant also filed Civil Suit No.44/1988 for declaring the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 as nullity.
2/ 2 By companymon judgment dated 28.1.2002, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1 and dismissed the one filed by the appellant.
He also prayed for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with his possession over the suit land.
meter to the respondents sometime in June, 1986.
Leave granted.
Respondent No.1 challenged the action of the appellant in R.C.S. No.301/1986 and sought a declaration that the appellant has numberright, power and authority to interfere with his use and occupation of the land.
