Gujarat HC Rejects Shop Occupier’s Challenge To AMC Vacate Notice, Says He Can Seek Injunction In Pending Civil Suit

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner could maintain a writ petition challenging the Corporation’s notice after having approached the City Civil Court with a suit concerning the same property and related reliefs.

The court held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had already approached the City Civil Court over the principal cause and could seek appropriate relief against the notice there.

It also directed

The petition was disposed of as rejected.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation notice dated 19 September 2026 requiring him to remove his occupation of a shop at O.P. No. 12, reserved as Plot No. 102.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The notice was issued under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act read with Rule 33.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The petitioner had already filed Civil Suit No. 692 of 2026 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, seeking, among other reliefs, directions concerning his asserted ownership, the property record, and protection against demolition pending allotment of a final plot.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–5.1

The Corporation’s notice noted that no interim relief had been granted in the suit.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner could maintain a writ petition challenging the Corporation’s notice after having approached the City Civil Court with a suit concerning the same property and related reliefs.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–5.3

ii.Whether the petitioner’s remedy against the notice should be pursued by seeking appropriate interim relief in the pending civil suit rather than before a separate forum.

p. 4 · ¶ 5.2

03Law Applied

The Corporation’s notice was issued under Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules framed under that Act.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The Court invoked the doctrine of res judicata, reasoning that a litigant who has pursued a substantive suit before a competent forum cannot maintain a separate proceeding in another forum for a related part of the same grievance, which the Court regarded as an offshoot or corollary of the principal cause.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5.2–5.3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act, 1976 Section 68

04Reasoning

The Court examined the plaint and concluded that, although it did not expressly challenge the notice, its substantive prayers sought relief against the Corporation and other respondents relating to the petitioner’s asserted ownership and protection of the property from demolition.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–5.1

It therefore treated the writ challenge as part of the grievance already placed before the City Civil Court. The petitioner could seek appropriate interim relief against the notice in that pending suit; having chosen that forum, he could not pursue the remaining part of the related grievance separately through a writ petition.

p. 4 · ¶ 5.2

On that basis, the Court considered the petition barred by res judicata and not maintainable.

p. 5 · ¶ 5.3