KEDARNATH PRAHLADRAY KHETAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/15876/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240770812026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15876 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KEDARNATH PRAHLADRAY KHETAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHAITANYA M VYAS(5651) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SOHAM S BHAGWAT(12103) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MANTHAN V GADHAVI(17549) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. MANSI D. PARMAR(18278) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. SALONI D. VALAND(16298) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MS SURBHI BHATI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR NANDISH Y CHUDGAR(2011) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 27/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Soham Bhagvat appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Surbhi Bhati appearing on behalf of the
respondent – State, learned advocate Mr.Deepak Aloriya
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 and learned advocate
Mr.Nandish Chudgar appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 11:52:13 IST 2026
C/SCA/15876/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240770812026)
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged a
notice dated 19.09.2026 issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation more particularly calling upon the petitioner to
remove his occupation of shop situated at O.P. No.12 which is
reserved as Plot No.102.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsels
for the parties, it would appear to this Court that the
petitioner, being aggrieved by a notice issued by the
Corporation under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning
and Urban Development Act read with Rule 33 thereof, had
approached the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by
preferring Civil Suit No.692/2026 and whereas, the
Corporation, vide the notice impugned before this Court, inter
alia states as much and further observes that since there is no
interim relief granted by the learned City Civil Court,
therefore, the petitioner would be required to vacate the
premises.
4. While confronted with the fact that the petitioner has
already approached a competent Court, it was initially
submitted by learned advocate that the petitioner did not
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 11:52:13 IST 2026
C/SCA/15876/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240770812026)
challenge the notice under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of
the Rules framed thereunder and whereas, this Court has
perused the plaint which is annexed with the petition and
whereas, upon perusing the prayers, it would clearly appear
to this Court that the petitioner, in addition to seeking for
certain prayers against certain private defendants who are
joined as parties therein, has also sought prayers against the
Municipal Corporation inasmuch as for directing the name of
the petitioner to be included in the F form for the property in
question after an order whereby the private defendants has
been directed to register sale deed dated 02.02.1990 in favour
of the petitioner had been passed. There are also certain
prayers with regard to the ratio of deduction as well as the
prayer with regard to injuncting the State respondents from
not demolishing the property of the petitioner till the final plot
is allotted etc.
5. Having regard to such a prayer, to this Court, it would
appear that the petitioner could not be heard to contend that
he has not challenged the notice under Section 68 of the Act
read with Rule 33 thereof before the learned City Civil Court,
more particularly, since the prayers noticed hereinabove
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 11:52:13 IST 2026
C/SCA/15876/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240770812026)
relate to the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development
Act.
5.1. While it is true that the prayer does not state about the
notice as such, yet, the substantive nature of prayers clearly
reveal that the grievance of the petitioner against the private
respondents being that they have not entered into a
registered sale deed with the petitioner and upon a
declaration by the learned Court for entering into a registered
sale deed with the petitioner, certain directions have been
sought for against the Municipal Corporation and others,
which are in the nature of directing the respondents to follow
appropriate proceedings after the petitioner is declared as an
owner.
5.2. To this Court, it would appear that the petitioner, upon
having approached a competent forum, would not be entitled
to maintain this petition. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by
notice dated 19.09.2026, it is always open for the petitioner to
have approached the learned City Civil Court with an
appropriated application for appropriate injunction against
the same and whereas, having chosen a remedy before a
competent forum, it would not be open for the petitioner to
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 11:52:13 IST 2026
C/SCA/15876/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240770812026)
approach a different forum for the remaining part of the
grievance.
5.3. To this Court, it would appear that the doctrine of ‘res
judicata’ bars the petitioner from preferring this petition
when a substantive suit has been preferred by the petitioner
for the principal cause, the cause raise herein being just an
offshoot or a corollary of the principal cause. That being the
position of law, the present petition would not be
maintainable.
6. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
petition itself not being maintainable, the same is hereby
disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 11:52:13 IST 2026