VILLA C COLONY KARMACHARI ASSOCIATIONS PRESIDENT RAJNIKANT KAMALJIT SOLANKI vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2424 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
VILLA C COLONY KARMACHARI ASSOCIATIONS PRESIDENT
RAJNIKANT KAMALJIT SOLANKI
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR JEET B KARIA(11991) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. G.H. VIRK, GP assisted by MS. DHWANI R. TRIPATHI, AGP
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
ROHAN N SHAH(8866) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 06/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The instant appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’)
challenges the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2024 passed in
Civil Suit No.1374 of 2014 by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad,
by which the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
Page 1 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
2. Parties are referred to as per their original status
before the learned trial Court.
3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the
plaintiff, claiming himself as a President of the Villa "C" Colony
Employees Association, filed a suit for declaration, permanent
injunction, and specific performance of the suit property bearing
block No.1 to 10 situated at Villa "C" Colony, Old IGP
Compound, Meghaninagar, District: Ahmedabad (suit property).
3.1 Villa "C" Colony Employees Association is registered
bearing registration No. A5794. Plaintiff claims that he is duly
authorized to file the suit on behalf of the said association. Suit
property are the residential quarters constructed for the
residence of Class-IV employees of the Government of Gujarat. In
total 10 blocks exist, and each block having 5 rooms plus 1
extra, in which 5 families are residing.
3.2 It is further stated that the plaintiff belongs to the
Valmiki community. They are the backward class of Scheduled
Castes and working as Class-IV employees in the various
Departments of the Government such as Sweeper, Driver, Ward
boy, Maid, Aaya, etc. and they are living in the suit property
along with their family as suit property is allotted as part of the
service condition since so many years.
3.3 It is further stated that the State Government had
constructed the suit property for the residential purpose of
Class-IV employees allotted to them after deducting the rent
from the salary of the Government employees.
Page 2 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
3.4 It is further stated that the allotment of the various
blocks were given to the employees on the condition that they
can continue to occupy the residential premises till they are in
service. In this background, the plaintiffs came out with the case
that the defendants are pressuring the plaintiffs to vacate the
suit property. The plaintiff has given the reply of the various
notices issued by the defendant. It is further stated that by GR
No.1230 dated 04.06.1988, the State Government has decided to
sell out the other Government quarters identical to suit property
at concessional rate to the employees, who are residing at
present on the rent, and further to the employees belong to
SC/ST community at a sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. In line
of the policy decision, Government has sold out the Government
quarters situated at Naroda, Opposite Vijay Mill, Ahmedabad on
concessional rate on permanent basis to the Government
employees. On Rule of Equity, it is claimed by the plaintiff that
since they are permanent employees, the benefit of the GR be
extended to them.
3.5 Mainly upon the aforesaid contention, the plaintiff,
Rajnikant Kamaljit Solanki, though he was not a Government
employee or in Government service, came out with the Civil Suit,
being Civil Suit No.1374 of 2014, and claimed the following
reliefs:-
“A) Pending the hearing and until the final disposal of this
suit, your honor may be pleased to pass a temporary
injunction order in favor of us plaintiffs and against the
defendants, directing the defendants of this case, their
servants, agents, or men not to carry out or cause to be
carried out any construction of any kind, not to create or
cause to be created any hurdle or obstruction, and not to
Page 3 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
block or cause to be blocked our (plaintiffs') right of way in
any manner on the disputed road mentioned in paragraph
no. 9 of this suit application and temporary injunction
application.
B) From the houses of the colony mentioned in paragraph
no. 9 of this suit application and temporary injunction
application, to us plaintiffs, the defendants of this case, their
servants, agents, men, or power of attorney holders do not
vacate or cause to be vacated, as well as do not cut the light
and water facilities; an application is made to pass such a
temporary injunction order in favor of us plaintiffs and
against the defendants during the pendency of this suit and
until the final disposal of the suit.
C) To grant any other relief which may be deemed fit and
reasonable.”
(Translated from Gujarati to English for better understanding)
3.6 Apart from contending that the plaintiff's suit is false,
frivolous and vexatious, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in its reply at
Exhibit-27, also contended that the plaintiff has no locus-standi
to file the present suit.
3.7 It is further contended that the plaintiff has not been
allotted any premises. The plaintiff is an encroacher of the
premises allotted to his mother, who is the erstwhile Government
employee.
3.8 It is further contended that the entire colony is
required for the larger public purpose of development and
redevelopment, as such entire premises has been transferred to
the Civil Hospital for the construction of hostel, housing facility
for PG, non-teaching and medical employees, and considering
Page 4 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
the public interest, possession of the property, which otherwise
belongs to the State Government, cannot be claimed as a right.
3.9 It is further contended that the allotment letter,
which was issued to the original allottee - Government
employees, who are the residents of the premises, clearly states
the condition that such allotment is made subject to service of a
Government employee in the city of Ahmedabad and until
he/she is in a Government job. Therefore, the allotment of the
Government quarter, which was made under the condition,
cannot be claimed as a permanent allotment.
3.10 Mainly upon this contention, it was urged to dismiss
the suit.
3.11 After framing the issues and permitting both the
parties to lead the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed
the suit.
3.12 Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the First
Appeal inter-alia on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.
3.13 The coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated
02.09.2025, dismissed the Civil Application No.1 of 2025 and
kept the matter for final hearing.
3.14 Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the SLP
(C) No.34183 to 34184 of 2025 before the Honourable Supreme
Court, whereby the Supreme Court vide order dated 20.04.2026
confirmed earlier order of status-quo to be maintained during
hearing of the appeal and expedited final hearing of the appeal.
Page 5 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jeet B. Karia for the
appellant, learned GP Mr. G.H. Virk assisted by learned AGP Ms.
Dhwani R. Tripathi for the State Goverment, learned advocate
Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi for the respondent No.6 and learned
advocate Mr. Rohan N. Shah for respondent No. 5.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Jeet B. Karia has placed on
record the written submissions. Learned GP has also placed on
record the written submissions along with the citations. Learned
advocates appearing for the respective respondents submit that
they adopt the arguments of the State.
5.1 As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Jeet B. Karia
that as per the policy of the Government Resolution of
1981/1984, several Class-IV employees, who were in occupation
of the Government quarters, have been sold these quarters at
concessional rates. In line of the said policy, the Government
cannot distinguish the residents of the “C” Colony and take a
different stand.
5.2 He would further submit that even some of the
persons living in “C” Colony were also given the alternative
accommodation, which will be deciphered from page No.326 of
the paper-book. Therefore, he submitted that the learned trial
Court committed gross error in dismissing the suit.
5.3 It is further argued by learned advocate Mr. Jeet B.
Karia that the employees, who are Class-IV and belong to the
backward classes being Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes,
Page 6 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
and when they were in a service, they were entitled to get title of
the Government quarters at a concessional rate. Subsequently,
their superannuation would not disentitle them from getting
such Government quarter at the concessional rate. This aspect
has been prayed and proved by the plaintiff before the learned
trial Court and yet, the learned trial Court did not consider the
same, and therefore, the impugned judgment since has lost sight
of the basis on which the claims were made in the plaint and the
prayers sought, more particularly the prayer sought that the
defendants be directed as per Resolution to execute sale
instrument in favor of the resident at concessional rate, is
palpably erroneous.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Jeet B. Karia further submitted
that the learned trial Court has not even whispered a word in the
impugned judgment about policy of the Government to sell
quarter and why same cannot be extended to the plaintiff. The
learned trial Court; therefore, has failed to touch upon this
issue, which makes the impugned judgment vulnerable.
5.5 It is sought to be submitted by learned advocate Mr.
Jeet B. Karia that the plaintiff's evidence remains unchallenged.
The defendant did not enter into the witness box and rebutted
the evidence of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court did not
discuss this issue and thereby, the judgment impugned remains
in the grey.
5.6 Lastly, it is submitted that the allottees of the
Government quarter of “C” Colony have authorized the present
plaintiff to file a suit and they produced different affidavits and
Page 7 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
also produced on record the Resolution at Exhibit-59, which
makes the plaintiff's case even better and yet, the learned trial
Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of locus-standi .
5.7 He further argued that the learned trial Court finding
in regards to no allotment made to the Villa "C" Colony
Trust/Associates, and therefore, suit is not maintainable, is
totally oblivious to the facts of the case as well as pleading made
by the plaintiff.
5.8 He has further stated that the finding of the learned
trial Court that the suit without issuing a mandatory notice
under Section 80 of ‘the Code’ being mandatory is not
maintainable, is again an eye-closed approach to the order below
Exhibit-12. Therefore, dismissing the suit on the two technical
grounds is erroneous on the part of the learned trial Court.
5.9 Relying upon Order I Rule 10 of ‘the Code’, it is
argued by learned advocate Mr. Jeet B. Karia that if learned trial
Court was of the opinion that the allottees of the Government
premises are necessary party, the Court should have exercised
the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of ‘the Code’ and amend the
suit by joining the other plaintiffs and to proceed further, but
dismissing the suit on this ground is hyper-technical, but
erroneous approach.
5.10 Lastly, it is submitted that the trial Court has passed
the judgment without application of mind. In the judgment it is
referred deposition of one Mukesh Kanjibhai Patel at Exhibit-59;
however, no such deposition has been recorded. Such glaring
Page 8 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
error alone is sufficient to prove non-application of the mind on
the part of the learned trial Court.
5.11 Mainly on the aforesaid submission, learned advocate
Mr. Jeet B. Karia submits to allow this appeal and to quash and
set aside the impugned order and to direct the State Government
to execute the sale deed in line of its policy at concessional rate
in favor of the allottee of Villa "C" Colony, and to issue
permanent injunction to that effect and till then, not to disturb
plaintiff’s possession.
6. Per contra , learned GP refers to the written
submission and mainly submitted that the President of the
appellant association allegedly claimed that the members of
association are the retired Government employee or family
members of the retired Government employees to whom the
Government had allotted Government quarters in Villa "C"
Colony, old IGP compound, Meghaninagar. However, it
established that the suit property is the Government quarters
and allotted to the Government employee as a part of the service
condition. The so-called association consists of retired employees
or family members of the retired employee, and thus, they are
not entitled to retain possession.
6.1 He submits that the allotment condition, which
prevails, states that the Government employee has to vacate the
premises on the day when they retire from the Government job.
It is in these factual circumstances that the suit filed by the
plaintiff was not maintainable, and rightly discussed.
Page 9 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
6.2 He further submits that the so-called beneficiary of
purported relief, all were retired Government employees and they
have not vacated the premises, which renders their status as a
status of an encroacher.
6.3 He further submits that in the appeal memo, Mr.
Rajnikant Kamaljit Solanki has admitted that neither he nor
Association is owner of the suit property. Learned GP refers to
page No.6 of the appeal memo. Therefore, he submits that the
plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit as he is not
possessing any of the Government quarter as allottee.
6.4 Referring to Exhibit-61, the prototype allotment letter
issued to one Shakaraji B. Thakor, he submits that the condition
No. (G), (T), and (D) thereof suffice to bring down the case of the
plaintiff, wherein it is submitted that the house is allotted to the
person taking it only for the period during which he holds the
said post in Ahmedabad under the Government and whenever
the house is to be vacated, the allottee shall be bound to it and
that such allotment is subject to the Civil Services Rules
regulating the occupation of the Government employee. In the
context to the aforesaid Exhibit-61, he referred to Exhibit-50, the
deposition of the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff has
not produced any allotment letter indicating that he has been
allotted any of the premises in Villa "C" Colony.
6.5 Learned GP would further submit that Block No.A/04
possessed by the plaintiff was allotted to his mother and she has
retired from service.
Page 10 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
6.6 Learned GP submits that since the plaintiff has failed
to prove and establish any enforceable legal right or subsisting
right to remain in possession or to continue to remain in
possession, his suit seeking the relief of declaration and
permanent injunction is not maintainable.
6.7 Further, it is submitted by the learned GP that the
policy decision taken by the State Government for particular
Government quarter cannot ipso-facto press service for other
Government quarter. There may be myriad reasons for taking a
decision for a particular quarter, but same reasons are not
applicable to the other Government quarters. Therefore, plaintiff
cannot insist that the Government has executed the sale deed
for some Government quarters, it is duty bound to execute the
sale deed for Villa "C" Colony.
6.8 He submits that nonetheless, the Resolution upon
which learned advocate for the plaintiff relies upon is AMC's
Resolution and not that of the State Government. It is in regards
to another colony belonging to Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation. The plaintiff cannot insist that the Government
should follow the decision taken by the AMC and to execute the
sale deed in regards to the quarters at Villa "C" Colony.
6.9 Lastly, it is argued that the public interest outcasts
the personal interest. It is further submitted that the entire
campus of the Villa "C" Colony has been handed over for
redevelopment of the Civil Hospital and for construction of the
hospital building, hostels, and residential facility for medical
staff. It is further submitted that the redevelopment project
Page 11 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
serves an independent and important public purpose and
directly enhances public healthcare infrastructure. Therefore,
plaintiff, who has no enforceable right, by filing a civil suit
cannot outcast or outweigh true public interest.
6.10 Mainly upon the above submission, learned
Government Pleader Mr. G.H. Virk relying upon the following
judgments submitted to dismiss this first appeal:-
i) Union of India and Ors. v. Vasavi Co-op Housing
Society Ltd , reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 54787 .
ii) Kishan Chand (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Gautam Gaur
Hitkarak Sabha, Kota , reported in 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC
76960 .
iii) Union of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar , reported in 2021 (0)
AIJEL-SC 67647.
iv) N.K. Parmar v. State of Gujarat , reported in 1992 SCC
OnLine Guj 359.
v) TD Vansia v. State of Gujarat , reported in 2004 SCC
OnLine Guj 518.
7. Learned advocates for the other respondents adopt
the arguments of learned GP.
8. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned
advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the impugned
Page 12 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
judgment along with the Record and Proceedings, firstly let refer
the issues framed by the learned trial Court, which reads as
under:-
“1 Whether the plaintiff who is the President of "C" Colony
which is registered vide registration No. F-5794 wherein
houses are built for the residence of Class IV Employees of
the State Government in which there are 1 to 10 blocks each
block having six rooms and there is a gap for ingress and
egress on the right side and the plaintiffs were residing
there since more than 50 years as mentioned in the plaint ?
2 Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants with
malafide intention and with a view to harass the plaintiffs,
closed the road used by the plaintiffs for ingress and egress
3 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable ?
4 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief as claimed
in para 10 of the suit ?
5 What order and decree ?”
9. All the issues are answered in ‘negative’ and in
regards to Issue No.5, the suit is dismissed.
10. Before discussing the argument canvassed by learned
advocates for both the sides, let me refer the reasons assigned by
the learned trial Court to dismiss the suit as under:-
“18. Now, keeping in mind above stated legal aspects on
considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and deposition of
plaintiff at Exh.50 (PW-1) which is written chief examination
as per the provision of Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, the facts
stated in the written chief examination is in line of Exh.1.
Now considering the cross-examination of the plaintiff who
deposed as a President of Villa "C" Colony Employees
Page 13 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
Association. Now he has admitted in his cross-examination
that plaintiff association is registered in the office of Charity
Commissioner and a copy for the same is produced at
P/Exh.58. Now, considering this document, it is a copy of
Schedule II of the trust having no. F-5794, Ahmedabad of
Villa "C" Colony employee association for block no. 1 to 10
situated at Mental Hospital Compound, Asarva,
Ahmedabad. Now on perusing this document it is not proved
that present witness Solanki Rajnikant came on record as a
President as per Change Report No. 63/06. Further, being a
president he is not aware about how many trustees are
there in the association. Further, the resolution produced
vide P/Exh.59 which is dated 05.06.2014 but it is a photo
copies and original are not furnished on record but the said
document referred in the cross-examination of this witness
by the defendant therefore, it is considered in evidence and
the authority by the members given to the present witness
for the court proceedings is proved and the affidavit
regarding authority produced vide P/Exh. 60 which is a
photo copy dated 21.07.2014 wherein 15 members have
given authority to the witness for proceedings. Further, the
allotment letter for quarter no. 15 and 16 is there in the
name of Shakaraji Thakor which is produced vide P/Exh.61.
Further, this witness admitted that as per the P/Exh.61
wherein a specific condition is there when the government
wants to vacate the house, at that time the allottee has to
vacate it.
19. Further, he admitted that the association is having no
any official allotment of house. Further, he admitted that
government has also given alternative accommodation to one
of the allottees Khodidas Ranabhai. Further, he admitted
that the entire Civil Hospital Campus is taken under re-
development by the government for the housing facilities,
hostel of medical students and residential accommodation
for the medical staff of the hospital. Further, this witness is
having no any knowledge of about retirement of members
out of 21 members. Thus, from the above cross-examination
it is proved that the residential houses allotted to the
members of plaintiff association as employees and not as a
owner. Therefore, being employee of the government no one
can claim his right on the allotted residential houses as an
owner which is also specifically stated in the terms and
Page 14 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
conditions of the allotment letter P/Ex.61. Thus no one can
claim as of right on the allotted residential properties.
20. Further, on perusing the entire oral and documentary
evidence it is proved that plaintiff has filed present suit
against the government and various government authorities
and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation therefore, the notice
under section 80 has become mandatory prior to file the
present suit against the defendants. Further, the statutory
notice also mandatory against the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation prior to filing present suit and there is no any
statutory provision to waive such notice against AMC.
Further, after filing of present suit, plaintiff has not complied
with the mandatory provision of Section 80 of CPC after
filing of present suit. In these circumstances, present suit is
defeated on the ground of non service of mandatory notice to
the defendants and also not maintainable without joining
the members of respective houses of Villla "C" Colony
employees Association because the prayer sought for in the
present suit is pertaining to each of the members of the Villa
"C" colony and therefore they all are become necessary
parties as per provision of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
21. Further, it is pertinent to note that the government has
never allotted a single residential unit to the plaintiff's
association therefore the association cannot claim any legal
right by way of filing suit wherein no any possession of the
association is there on any of the properties. Thus, in
absence of the necessary parties, present suit is not
maintainable. Further, it is pertinent to note that plaintiff
association registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act
and the suit is preferred for its members in these
circumstances, the permission of Charity Commissioner
under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust has become
crucial and when the pleadings of the plaintiff is such that it
has authority as a President of a Trust registered under the
Bombay Public Trust then the above permission is must prior
to filing of present suit but the above said property are not
registered with the Charity Commissioner Office as a Trust
property therefore plaintiff has to prove that the property are
attached with the trust and the members also a trustees of
the trust but on perusing the documents produced by
plaintiff vide P/Exh.58 it is not proved that the residential
Page 15 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
unit registered with trust and all the members are the
trustees of the trust. Thus, merely getting registration under
the Bombay Public Trust Act, the plaintiff being President of
said trust, cannot get any authority automatically to act on
behalf of other allottees without having proper authority
from the Competent Authority.”
11. Summarizing the suit of the plaintiff, in title it is
stated by the plaintiff that he is the President of the Villa "C"
Colony Karmachari Association. In the first paragraph of the
plaint, he has pleaded that he is filing the suit as a President of
the Villa "C" Colony Karmachari Association.
12. Perusing the entire pleading, nowhere the plaintiff
has asked any relief in regards to his personal character. To be
noted that this suit is not filed under Section 91(1)(b) of ‘the
Code’ read with Order I Rule 8 of ‘the Code’. The plaintiff in his
individual capacity filed the suit and claimed the relief for a
public at large without joining the persons, who are the
beneficiary of the relief. Even plaintiff did not examine any of the
so-called beneficiaries of the relief of the plaint. Plaintiff, being a
one-man army, has filed and fought the suit for nearly Fourteen
years and although he is not a Government employee nor an
allottee of the Government quarter, resisted eviction from
Government quarter from all these years.
13. The crux of plaintiff's suit that the Villa "C" Colony is
occupied by Class-IV employees of the State Government, they
belong to backward and Schedule Caste and they are entitled to
continue their possession till they are the allottees under the
Government allotment letter and their possession is protected till
Page 16 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
they are in job. In this principal pleading, another sort of
pleading was made that the State Government by Resolution
No.1230 dated 04.06.1981 decided to sell the Government
quarters to its employees, more particularly who belong to the
backward class or Schedule Caste, at Rs.15,000/-.
14. In N.K. Parmar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. ,
reported in (1992) 33 (2) GLR 1508 , the point in issue was the
same. The Division Bench of this Court in the group of the
petitions was dealing with the prayer by Government employees
and the prayer of the employees of the GSRTC and other
Government corporations that the Government should be
directed to sell them the tenements, which are allotted to them
as employees for residential purpose during their service tenure.
The dispute was pertaining to “F”, “G” and “K” colonies in
Meghaninagar housing colonies. These colonies are situated just
near Villa "C" Colony. The Division Bench inter-alia held as
under:-
“5. In our view, it is difficult to accept that the Government
employees or the employees of the State Transport
Corporation have any legal or equitable right to insist that
the quarters or blocks which were allotted to them during
their service tenure should be sold to them. Normally,
residential accommodation is provided to the employees
either because of service conditions or for giving facility to
them during their service period because of transfer from one
place to another and with a view to see that there is no
hardship to them in getting the rental accommodation. If this
contention of transferring the quarters or blocks in favour of
the employees who are residing therein is accepted, the
result would be that, for every Government employee or the
employee of the Corporation, the Government or the
Corporation would be required to construct new houses or
blocks. Further, if some tenements/blocks were transferred
Page 17 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
or sold under some scheme in the past by the Government at
the subsidised rate to the Government employees, it cannot
be said that for all time to come the Government should go
on framing such schemes and transferring the
blocks/tenements after constructing the same to the
employees.”
15. Therefore, the contention by the plaintiff Mr.
Rajnikant Solanki that the State Government should sell the
Government quarters to them, which were allotted for residential
purpose during their service tenure, is difficult to accept and
such awful and appalling contention is accordingly repelled.
16. Exhibit-61 is the prototype allotment letter allotting
one of the residential quarters of Villa "C" Colony to allottee - Mr.
Shakaraji B. Thakor. Learned advocate Mr. Jeet B. Karia
appearing for the appellant could not dispute the terms and
conditions of the allotment letter. The terms and conditions of
the allotment letter are reproduced herein as under:-
“The premises described in the margin is allotted to him/her
for their own use and generally for the use of the
dependents residing with them from the date of this order,
subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) When the Allottee takes possession of the quarter,
he/she shall sign an inventory of all fixtures, fittings,
etc., and when he/she vacates the residence, he/she
shall hand over such fixtures, fittings, etc. back in
good condition. The Colony Clerk shall verify this
inventory.
(b) The liability for rent shall commence upon the expiry of
a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the
allotment order or from the date on which the quarter
Page 18 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
becomes vacant, whichever is later; provided that if a
written intimation stating that the quarter is not to be
accepted is given to the Accommodation Director within
seven days from the date of receipt of this order and
an acknowledgment to that effect is obtained by the
employee, there shall be no liability for rent.
(c) The quarter is allotted to the Allottee only for the
tenure during which he/she holds the office in this
Government at Ahmedabad.
(d) The said quarter shall not be used by anyone other
than the Allottee and his/her dependents, and it shall
not be used for any purpose other than residential.
(e) The Allottee shall not sublet the residence or any part
thereof allotted to him/her to any other person, and/or
shall not keep any paying guest. Strict action shall be
taken against unauthorized possession. If
unauthorized possession is detected, the quarter shall
be got vacated.
(f) No act shall be done which causes damage to any part
of the property or defaces its appearance. The Allottee
shall be held liable for the cost, expenses, and
consequences of any such damage or act defacing the
appearance of the quarter caused by the Allottee, or
any person residing with him/her, or any person
visiting him/her, and the same shall be recovered from
him/her. The Allottee shall not carry out any structural
alterations, additions, modifications of a permanent or
temporary nature, or fix any items in the residence,
nor shall keep it locked for a long period, without the
prior permission of the Accommodation Director,
Ahmedabad.
(g) Except in the circumstances of change and transfer,
when the Allottee intends to vacate the residence,
he/she shall give one month's prior notice in writing to
the Director of Accommodation, Ahmedabad, and
obtain a clear acknowledgment of having handed over
the possession of the vacant quarter to his/her
representative. If the Allottee fails to give one month's
notice and if the quarter remains vacant due to non-
giving of such notice, the Allottee shall be liable to pay
Page 19 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
rent until the quarter is re-allotted to another person or
for such period as may be decided by the Government.
(h) If the information furnished by the Allottee is found to
be false, the order of allotment of quarter shall stand
automatically cancelled, and the Allottee shall not be
entitled to demand any Government accommodation in
future.
(i) When the quarter is ordered to be vacated, the Allottee
shall be bound to do so.
(j) The quarter is ready for occupation. The Allottee can
take possession of the quarter by contacting the
Colony Clerk within fifteen days from this order of
allotment. If the possession of the quarter is not taken
within the stipulated time, this allotment shall be
deemed to be automatically cancelled. In case the
quarter is allotted upon becoming vacant, a period of 7
(seven) days shall be computed from the date on which
the quarter becomes vacant.
(k) This premises is allotted subject to the Bombay Civil
Services Rules regulating the occupation of
Government residences.
(l) If the possession of the allotted quarter/flat is not
taken, no other flat or quarter shall be allotted as per
rules, and house rent allowance shall also not be
admissible.
(m) If a house is constructed or acquired in the name of
either of the spouses, they shall shift to such house
and vacate the Government quarter allotted by this
order.
(n) A Government quarter shall be compulsorily got
vacated from an employee who commits a breach of
these conditions.
(o) The Allottee shall affix his/her signature in the
prescribed quarterly register maintained with the
Accommodation Clerk.
(p) The employee shall comply with the provisions of
Government Resolution No. ACD, 1076, 1960, 11 N-1,
dated 22-10-’92 regarding the quarter allotted to them,
and shall have to vacate the quarter within the time
Page 20 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
limit prescribed for the occasions mentioned therein,
and shall have to hand over vacant possession back to
the employee. If the quarter is retained for a period
exceeding the time provided under the said Resolution,
such period shall be treated as unauthorized
possession and the rent thereof shall be recovered
from the concerned employee in accordance with the
provisions of the said Resolution. The responsibility for
not vacating the quarter within the prescribed time
limit mentioned in the said Resolution shall rest with
the concerned employee.
(q) You shall immediately intimate this office regarding
your transfer, retirement, dismissal from Government
service, resignation from Government service, etc.
(r) You shall take over possession of the said quarter and
vacate the quarters under your occupation within 7
days. In the event of failure to do so, rent shall be
recovered at the market rate for the entire period
during which the possession of two Government
quarters is retained or until the Government so
decides.”
(Translated from Gujarati to English for better understanding)
17. It is clear that the allotment of the residential quarter
to the plaintiff was subject to terms and conditions stated
hereinabove. It is not absolute and permanent allotment. It is
always subject to service conditions and governed by the service
regulations. The Government employee as of right cannot claim
to continue in a Government premises post superannuation.
Terms and conditions are clear as crystal. Employee whom
Government quarters are allotted have no vested right or any
actionable claim. Government employee are bound to vacate
quarter as and when ordered by the competent officer; inasmuch
as their occupation is governed by Bombay Civil Service Rules.
In this factual position, suit filed for seeking relief and specific
Page 21 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
relief under the Specific Relief Act, was not maintainable since
inception.
18. Now, it is time to examine the deposition of the
plaintiff. The sole crusader.
18.1 In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he
doesn’t know how many trustees were there in the plaintiff’s
trust when he has filed the suit, then in second thought said
that as of now, 11 to 15 trustees are forming the part of the
trust.
18.2 He has further admitted that at the time when he has
filed the suit, in total 21 persons were with him (None of them
are party to the suit, none of them have signed the suit, and
none of them has entered into the witness box).
18.3 He has further admitted in Exhibit-P59 that, only 5
persons signed this document (This is a Resolution by which
plaintiff claims that he was authorized to file the suit).
18.4 He has further admitted in Exhibit-P60 that, as many
as 15 persons have signed the affidavit and permitted him to file
the suit. So there is a contrast in Resolution at Exhibit-P59 and
the affidavit at Exhibit P-60.
18.5 He has further admitted that he is in possession of
A/04 Villa "C" Colony. He further admitted that the allotment of
the A/04 was made in the name of his mother - Shitalben K.
Solanki alias Shantaben G. Rana, and she has retired from
service.
Page 22 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
18.6 He has further admitted that he cannot say that on
which date the allotment was made to his mother. He has
further admitted that he has not produced the copy of the
allotment letter by which his mother has been allotted A/04 of
Villa "C" Colony. He has also admitted that State Government
has not allotted any residential quarter to Villa "C" Colony
Karmachari Association, and admitted that only the employees
are allotted the residential quarters.
18.7 He has further admitted that originally A/04 Villa in
"C" Colony was allotted to Khodidas Rana and he has been
allotted the alternative accommodation. He answered the
question with the clarification that Government has forcefully
given the alternative accommodation to him. Then in para 14, he
admitted that the entire campus of Villa "C" Colony has been
handed over to the Civil Hospital for development and
redevelopment, but clarified that except the disputed land, every
other part has been handed over to the Civil Hospital.
18.8 He has further stated that he does not know whether
the 21 persons, who are the beneficiaries of the plaint, are
retired or superannuated from service during the pendency of
the suit.
19. It is in this position, what appears is that the
plaintiff, who is neither a Government employee nor has any
right to remain in possession of the Government quarter, under
the pretext of the suit, continued the illegal
possession/occupation for years together. Once a Government
employee, in view of the conditions of the allotment letter as well
Page 23 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
as in view of the regulations had retired from service, he has to
vacate the Government shelter and has to handover the
possession thereof to the State Government. If he continues the
possession after superannuation, his possession would become
illegal, and that of rank trespasser, which cannot be protected in
the Court of law.
20. At this juncture, I may refer to the famous judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira
Fernandes and Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead)
through Lrs. , reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 in regards to the
term “possession” and “due process of law”. Para 64, 67, 68, 69,
70, 71, 75 held as under:-
“64. There is a presumption that possession of a person,
other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is
permissive on behalf of the title-holder. Further, possession
of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue
in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually
more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter
which has seen much abuse and misuse before the Courts.
xxx xxx xxx
67. In an action for recovery of possession of immovable
property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon the legal
title to the property being established, the possession or
occupation of the property by a person other than the holder
of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in
subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the person
resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a
right to continue in possession, to establish that he has such
a right. To put it differently, wherever pleadings and
documents establish title to a particular property and
possession is in question, it will be for the person in
possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars
Page 24 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
and documents to support his claim in order to continue in
possession.
68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties
to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title
is prima facie established, it is for the person who is
resisting the title holder's claim to possession to plead with
sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in
possession and place before the Court all such documents
as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to
be there. Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue
be struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be
on him to prove the averred facts and documents.
69. The person averring a right to continue in possession
shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized
specific pleading along with documents to support his claim
and details of subsequent conduct which establish his
possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession
must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They
are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the
property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to
possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession - whether he
purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or
by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the
consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the
rent, license fee or lease amount;
Page 25 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on rent
deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or
otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family
members, friends or servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have
extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift
therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but
continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on
documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those
documents would be relevant which come into existence
after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance
as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the
threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine
pleadings and documents.
xxx xxx xxx
75. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue
in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for
him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on
what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity
and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the
owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give
details on what basis he is claiming a right to continue in
possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they
will not constitute sufficient claim of defence.”
20.1. The Supreme Court crystallized the Principle of Law
as under:-
“97 Principles of law which emerge in this case are
crystallized as under:-
Page 26 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was
allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long
possession of years or decades such person would not
acquire any right or interest in the said property.
2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire
interest in the property irrespective of his long possession.
The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on
demand.
3. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of
a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live
in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative,
caretaker or as a servant.
4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or
extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent
agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his
favour.
5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only
on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest
whatsoever for himself in such property irres pective of his
long stay or possession.”
21. In view of above reasons, plaintiff’s suit found wholly
voracious and frivolous. Plaintiff has no locus-standi or any
legally enforceable right to ask relief to protect his possession or
possessions of 21 retired employees over the Government
quarter or to ask for relief of directing Government to sell the
Government quarters to the retired Government employees
22. It is noticeable that a completely groundless person is
allowed to continue to occupy the suit premises since 2014,
inasmuch as the possession of the Government quarter also
occupied since 2014, despite Government Class-IV employees
Page 27 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
have retired, which has outweighed the public purpose of
development and redevelopment for the Civil Hospital, this kind
of the attempt in an already choked system is to be deprecated
and accordingly, is deprecated. Therefore, while nipping this
attempt, the Court is expected to impose exemplary cost.
23. Apt to note that the unauthorized occupation of
Government quarters is not a mere breach of the terms of
allotment; it constitutes an unlawful deprivation of a scarce
public resource held by the State in trust for eligible public
servants. Official accommodation is allotted to facilitate efficient
discharge of public duties and not to create a vested or perpetual
right in favour of the allottee. Once the authority to occupy the
premises comes to an end, continuance in possession is plainly
unauthorized and cannot be countenanced on equitable or
sympathetic considerations. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
expressed serious concern over the growing tendency of
unauthorized retention of Government accommodation. In S.D.
Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors. , reported in (2013) 12 SCC
631 , the Court observed that continued occupation of
Government quarters beyond the permissible period causes
grave hardship to persons awaiting allotment and results in loss
to the public exchequer. The Court emphasized that such
unauthorized occupation frustrates the very object of the
statutory mechanism enacted under the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which provides
for a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants.
Page 28 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
The observation of the Supreme Court in para 34 reads as
under:-
“34. It is unfortunate that the employees, officers,
representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue
to stay in the residential accommodation provided by the
Government of India though they are no longer entitled to
such accommodation. Many of such persons continue to
occupy residential accommodation commensurate with the
office(s) held by them earlier and which are beyond their
present entitlement. The unauthorised occupants must
recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of
one person entail the duties of another person similarly the
duty of one person entails the rights of another person.
Observing this, the unauthorised occupants must appreciate
that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes
the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control
this act of disobedience but for the self-realisation among the
unauthorised occupants. The matter is disposed of with the
above terms and no order is required in IAs for impleadment
and intervention.”
24. The same principle was reiterated in Lok Prahari v.
State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2016) 8 SCC 389 , and
again in Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
(2018) 6 SCC 1 , wherein the Supreme Court held that
Government bungalows and official residences are public
property belonging to the people and cannot be retained after the
cessation of the legal entitlement. The Court underscored that
the distribution and retention of public property must conform
to the constitutional mandate of equality and public trust and
that no person, irrespective of the office earlier held, can claim a
special privilege to continue in occupation contrary to law.
Page 29 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026
C/FA/2424/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
25. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that
unauthorized occupation of Government quarters has assumed
the character of a public menace. Any leniency towards such
illegal retention not only rewards disobedience of law, but also
prejudices the rights of eligible employees awaiting
accommodation and undermines public confidence in the fair
administration of Government property. Courts must, therefore,
ensure that public premises are restored to the State without
undue delay so that public assets remain available for the
purpose for which they were intended.
26. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and
accordingly, stands dismissed with the costs of Rs.10,000/- to
be paid by the appellant - plaintiff to the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority within a period of 15 days from today, failing
which Registry shall issue the recovery certificate to recover the
said amount as arrears of land revenue.
27. Interim-relief, if any, granted earlier is vacated
forthwith. Connected CA, if any, does not survive.
Registry to send the Record and Proceedings to the
concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 30 of 30
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:06:03 IST 2026