Vadodara civic body gets possession of land bought 43 years ago
After a 12-year-long legal battle, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) has got back a plot measuring over one lakh square feet in Sama, which it had purchased in 1975 and executed a sale deed for it in 1982.
The district court, while delivering judgement in the current regular civil appeal filed by the civic body relied, upon the documentary evidences of land revenue code rather than old revenue entries made before independence.
VMC had brought the land in 1975 to construct houses for people from weaker sections from the owner Manu Parmar and his heirs. While the VMC never initiated construction on the site for several reasons, heirs of one Chiman Parmar approached trial court in 2006 claiming ownership of the said land and requesting court to restrain heirs of Manu and VMC to transfer the property. Two years later a special civil suit was also filed against VMC and heirs of Manu to cancel the sale deed that was executed in 1982. The trial court had allowed the suits and even passed a judgement cancelling the sale deed.
In 2010, the VMC filed a civil appeal in the district court against the trial court’s judgement. During the hearing of the appeal, the civic body produced the land revenue records according to which the original owner of the land was one Chunilal Thakkar and after his death his heirs Narendra Thakkar and Popatlal Thakkar became the owners. However, after the Tenancy Act was enacted Manu became the owner of the land as also declared by the mamlatdar.
VMC’s advocates P R Bhatt and K P Chavan also argued during the hearing that after the sale deed was executed, the advertisement published in newspapers were not challenged by heirs of Chiman nor were the revenue entries and tenancy proceedings challenged by them.
District and sessions judge J C Doshi, in a strongly-worded judgement, quashed and set aside the judgement of the trial court. The judgement also stated that the heirs of Chiman challenged the sale deed after 26 years of its execution which is beyond law of limitation and that “anyone cannot be allowed to use process of court as kicks of football.”