Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 55 (GUJ)

Patadia Bhaichand Premji v. Government of Gujarat

2019-01-23

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Since the present group of appeals arise out of the same dispute, the same is decided by a common judgment. 2. As the dispute involved in the present appeals is similar in nature, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Second Appeal No. 58 of 1996 are incorporated herein. 3. The present group of appeals has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1996 passed by the Assistant Judge, Morvi in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1993 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Morvi in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1992, whereby the suit instituted by the present appellant seeking permanent injunction and declaration that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have no right, interest or authority with respect to the suit property was dismissed. 4. The respondent no. 1 and 2 have stated that the suit land belongs to the government and, therefore, as per the order of the Collector, the possession of the land is required to be handed over to the respondent no. 2. The suit land is a part of Revenue Survey no. 147/1, which is a government waste land. Before both the courts below, it was contended by the respondents that as per the revenue record, the land belongs to the government and it has sold the suit land to the respondent no. 2 and the possession thereof was also handed over to the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Gujarat Water Supply Board. The possession was handed over to the Gujarat Water Supply Board on 11.06.1982 in presence of the panchas. Therefore, the respondent no. 3-Wankaner Municipality has no right, title or interest over the suit land bearing Revenue Survey no. 147/1 of the government waste land. In short, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have raised the contentions that the suit land belongs to the government and it is sold to the respondent no. 2-Board and the Wankaner Municipality was never the owner of the suit land. Hence, the appellant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. 5. The respondent no. 3-the Wankaner Municipality has filed its written statement and supported the case of the appellant. 6. Mr. H.J. Karathiya, learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that the land bearing plot nos. 22 and 23, admeasuring 2312 and 2274 sq. ft. Hence, the appellant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. 5. The respondent no. 3-the Wankaner Municipality has filed its written statement and supported the case of the appellant. 6. Mr. H.J. Karathiya, learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that the land bearing plot nos. 22 and 23, admeasuring 2312 and 2274 sq. ft. situated on the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 was purchased by the present appellant vide registration No. 598 dated 03.02.1970 and since then, the land was in possession of the appellant. In the year 1982, without any right, title or interest in the land, respondent no. 2-Board has tried to do excavation work over the said land and tried to do fencing on the said plots and, therefore, the appellant was constrained to instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morvi. The respondent no. 3 filed reply and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 vide Exh.32. The issues were framed vide Exh.33 and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit. Against the aforesaid decision, Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1993 was preferred before the Assistant Judge at Morvi. Assistant Judge at Morvi failed to raise all the points for determination and raised only a single point that whether the Civil Judge of the Morvi has erred in passing the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1982 and gave the findings in the negative and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the first appellate court has erred in not giving the findings on every issues and the decision of the first appellate court is erroneous. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that the lower courts failed to appreciate that the whole vacant land was vested in respondent no. 3 and it (respondent No. 3) sold the land to the appellant and erred in holding that the land in question was of the ownership of respondent no. 1. 7.1 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that both the lower Courts below failed to appreciate that the appellant owned the land since 1970. It was submitted that both the lower Courts failed to appreciate that the appellant was holding the land for value without notice. 1. 7.1 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that both the lower Courts below failed to appreciate that the appellant owned the land since 1970. It was submitted that both the lower Courts failed to appreciate that the appellant was holding the land for value without notice. 7.2 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that the lower courts have failed to appreciate that as per the government notification the suit land, which was sold by the respondent no. 3 to the appellant vide Registration No. 598 dated 03.02.1970 was rightly sold to the present appellant and both the courts have erred in interpreting the government notification and have thereby committed an error of law. 7.3 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that as per the policy of respondent no. 1, if respondent no. 3 sells any property which originally belonged to the government i.e. the respondent no. 1, it was required to deposit an amount of consideration to the respondent no. 1Government and also was required to obtain post facto permission of the respondent no. 1. He has submitted that at the time of purchasing the disputed plot from the respondent no. 3, which is a local authority, the appellant had no reason to doubt about the title of respondent no. 3 and at present also, the respondent nos. 1 and 3 are corelated and are in a position to regularize, if there is an error on either part. 7.4 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has submitted that the issue involved in the present group of appeals has already been decided by this court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mangrol Municipality, 2013 (2) GLR 1621 . He has submitted that the present group of appeals also pertain to the same municipality and similar notification, which is subject matter of the present appeals i.e. the notification dated 07.07.1955, was the subject matter of scrutiny in the aforesaid judgment. He has submitted that the present group of appeals also pertain to the same municipality and similar notification, which is subject matter of the present appeals i.e. the notification dated 07.07.1955, was the subject matter of scrutiny in the aforesaid judgment. 7.5 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Govind Murji Patel (Kerai) vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 (1) GLR 671 and submitted that unless such evidence is brought on record, the relief for setting aside the agreement for allotment of the land by way of sanad may not be granted by the competent court, merely because subsequently, it is allegedly found that the officer had no authority. 7.6 Learned advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff placed reliance on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Haryana State vs. Gram Panchayat Village Kalehri, 2016 (6) Scale 157 and submitted that when the court is required to properly interpret the nature of the documents, the same involves a legal issue based on admitted documents and not an issue of fact. It is therefore, obligatory upon the High Court to decide the legality and correctness of such findings as to which documents are to be preferred for conferring the title over the suit land. 7.7 Learned advocate for the appellant-plaintiff invited the attention of this court to the notification dated 26.07.1955 and notification dated 07.09.1970 exhibited at Exh.133 and Exh.135. It is further submitted that the Collector has no authority to issue such order and the real owner is the Wankaner Municipality. It is submitted that as on date, the plots are vacant and the appellant has been paying the taxes to the Municipal Corporation till today. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by Assistant Judge, Morvi, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1993 is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate for the appellant adopted the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. Karathiya and submitted that the issue involved in the present group of appeals is already settled by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mangrol Municipality (supra). 9. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent no. 8. Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate for the appellant adopted the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. Karathiya and submitted that the issue involved in the present group of appeals is already settled by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mangrol Municipality (supra). 9. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 i.e. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Wankaner has submitted that Board is undertaking the execution of water supply and sewerage throughout the State of Gujarat as per the administrative requirements. He submitted that in the instant case, District Collector, Rajkot, passed an order dated 28.04.1992 allotting a part of Government Kharaba land of Village Wankaner, Taluka Wankaner, District Rajkot to the Board for the government work on certain terms and conditions. However, the said order was amended on 28.07.1982 by District Collector, Rajkot and another order was passed for allotment of the land. He further submitted that immediately thereafter, the first order dated 28.04.1982 the possession of the land was handed over to the Board on 11.06.1982 but, later on, necessary adjustments were made pursuant to the amended order dated 28.07.1982 and an amount of Rs. 14,520/- was deposited in the office of Mamlatdar, Wankaner pursuant to the order dated 31.03.1984 passed by the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 9.1 Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the land in question was never a property of Wankaner Municipality and as such it was a government kharaba under the administrative control and supervision of the District Collector. He further submitted that District Collector, Rajkot had passed an appropriate orders for allotment of part of the land Supply and Sewerage Board for public purpose and hence, it is requested by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw to uphold the judgment and decrees of the Lower Court and further be pleased to reject the present Second Appeal in limine with cost. 10. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. The judgments and the documents pointed out by them are also perused by me. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the appellant Court confirming that of the trial Court is in accordance with law?” 11. The judgments and the documents pointed out by them are also perused by me. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the appellant Court confirming that of the trial Court is in accordance with law?” 11. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant-original plaintiff had purchased the property from respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Wankaner Municipality and Lekh No. 688 dated 23.01.1970 (Exh.65) of sale of the land/plot in question was made by respondent no. 3 – original defendant no. 3-Wankaner Municipality. Subsequently, sale-deed dated 21.04.1972, registered no. 335 was also made in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff, which is exhibited at Exh.66. Accordingly, sanad was issued by the State Government at Exh.69. 11.1 The aforesaid sale deed was executed by respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3- Wankaner Municipality in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff pursuant to the notification dated 26.07.1955 (Exh.99), wherein Vankaner Municipality has been conferred the ownership of the lands situated within its limit. The aforesaid notification was issued under the powers vested by virtue of Section 50 of the Bombay District Municipality Act, 1901. Subsequently, vide a resolution dated 07.09.1970 (Exh.135), earlier notification dated 26.07.1955 was clarified to the effect that the land of the government survey numbers and government kharaba survey numbers cannot be called the plots and they are not vested in the municipalities under the Government of Saurashtra notification. It was further observed that only after the permission of the State Government, the municipalities can sell the said lands of the government kharaba lands. 11.2 Subsequently, since there were representations made by the municipalities, by the resolution dated 17.01.1980 (Exh.134), resolution dated 07.09.1970 was cancelled. 11.3 It appears that the Deputy Collector, under the provisions of Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, initiated the proceedings regarding the ownership of the respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Wankaner Municipality in connection of the suit land and it was held that the said land belongs to the government and not to the respondent no. 3, Wankaner Municipality. 11.4 The Deputy Collector, vide order dated 25.02.1982 (Exh.96) had opined that the land of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 paikee near Rajkot Road belongs to the Government and the respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3, Wankaner Municipality. 11.4 The Deputy Collector, vide order dated 25.02.1982 (Exh.96) had opined that the land of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 paikee near Rajkot Road belongs to the Government and the respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Wankaner Municipality was restrained from converting the government waste land. The aforesaid order was further challenged before the Collector, Rajkot by the Wankaner Nagarpalika and by the order dated 10.08.1982 (Exh.97), the appeal filed by the Nagarpalika under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, was rejected. The same was further carried in appeal by the Vankaner Nagarpalika before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing an Appeal (TEN) A.R. 76 of 1982, Rajkot. By the decision dated 05.05.1983 (Exh.98), the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Wanker Municipality and it was observed that the government waste land cannot be treated as a plot and hence, the suit land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 paikee cannot be transferred by the Nagarpalika under Government Notification dated 26.07.1955. 11.5 After the aforesaid proceedings, the Collector, District Rajkot, vide order dated 04.06.1982 (Exh.118) directed the Vankaner Municipality to deposit an amount received by it pursuant to the sale of Revenue Survey No. 147/1. It was also observed that earlier Resolution dated 30.03.1977 passed by the Nagarpalika in its General Board i.e. Resolution No. 22 was also cancelled. It appears that thereafter, the sale consideration amount was deposited by the Respondent no. 3Municipality with the State Government. 11.6 In wake of the aforesaid facts, the substantial question of law is required to be reframed. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court. “1. Whether the plots of land of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 vested in respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Vankaner Municipality pursuant to the Notification dated 26.07.1955 and it was entitled to sell the plots to the present appellants-original plaintiffs? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated under section 37 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal with regard to the lands of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 can have any effect on the sale of the plots of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 by the respondent no. 3 Municipality to the present appellants-original plaintiffs? 3. Whether the District Collector had any right or authority to allot the land in question to the respondent no. 3 Municipality to the present appellants-original plaintiffs? 3. Whether the District Collector had any right or authority to allot the land in question to the respondent no. 2 Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Wankaner? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the appellant court confirming that of the trial court is in accordance with law?” 11.7 As reflected from the facts, the genesis of the entire controversy lies in the notification dated 26.07.1955 (Exh.99). In order to appreciate the true nature and import of the notification, it would be apposite to incorporate the notification dated 26.07.1955 (Exh.99). “WHEREAS under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Bombay District Municipal Act (No. III of 1901) as adopted and applied to the State of Saurashtra (herein after referred to as the said Act) the Vankaner Municipality may acquire and held property both movable and immovable within and without the limits of the said municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the said Act, the Government is pleased to transfer to the said municipality all vacant plots situated within the limits of the said municipality and belonging to the Government except plot described in the schedule hereto appended for local public purpose.” Schedule: 1. Risala Compound and Police lines plots in Laxmipura for parade Ground........37,660 Yrds – 7Ft. 2. Sports Ground Plot near City Chavdi over Rajkot for the high School play ground...........36,776 Yrds – 4Ft. By Order and in the name of Raj Pramukh of Saurashtra Sd/- (illegible) Secretary to Government of Saurashtra Revenue Department (LSC).” 11.8 A plain and simple reading of the provisions of the notification would reveal that the same is issued under Section 50(1) of the Bombay District Municipality Act, 1901 and pursuant to Section 50(2) of the Act, the Government had transferred both-movable and immovable properties situated within the limits of the municipality, except the properties mentioned in the schedule. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 does not form the part of the lands provided in the schedule. 11.9 Thereafter, the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 14/1 was converted into the plots in the year 1969. In view of the aforesaid notification, respondent no. 3-original defendant no. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 does not form the part of the lands provided in the schedule. 11.9 Thereafter, the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 14/1 was converted into the plots in the year 1969. In view of the aforesaid notification, respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Vankaner Municipality sold the land of Lekh No. 688 dated 23.01.1970 (Exh.65) to the present appellant and thereafter, sale deed dated 21.04.1972 being registration no. 335 was also made in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff which is exhibited at Exh.66. Accordingly, sanad was issued by the State Government at Exh.69. 11.10 In the meantime, the State Government issued a resolution dated 07.09.1970, Exh.134 clarifying the aforesaid notification dated 26.07.1955. Both the Courts have heavily placed reliance on the Resolution dated 07.09.1970. The same is reproduced as under: 11.11 The relevant clause of Resolution dated 07.09.1970 reads as under: “1. The Collector and the Local Revenue Officers should see that the lands of Government survey numbers and Government kharaba number remains in position of Government only. The Collector should take immediate step to see all such lands are listed out and entered as Government Lands in the Government Records and that they are not disposed of municipality. 2. The cases in which the Municipality has applied to the Collector concerned or the Commissioner for granting permission for the sale of lands of Government kharaba lands numbers and realized amount after selling the lands with such permission that the amount should be allowed to be retained by the Municipality concerned. Details about such cases should be submitted to Government within a month. 3. The cases in which sales have been without obtaining sanction either from the Collector or the Commissioner the amount realised by the Municipality should be reserved and credited to the Government. The Collector should be see that in all such cases the needful is done immediately. Details about such cases should also be furnished to the Government within a month.” 11.12 A bare perusal of the provisions of the resolution dated 07.09.1970 would reveal that there was not a absolute bar on the municipality of dealing with the land of Kharaba Survey Numbers. Details about such cases should also be furnished to the Government within a month.” 11.12 A bare perusal of the provisions of the resolution dated 07.09.1970 would reveal that there was not a absolute bar on the municipality of dealing with the land of Kharaba Survey Numbers. Clause-3 of the resolution dated 07.09.1970 stipulates that in the cases where the sales have been affected by the municipality without obtaining sanction either from the District Collector or the Commissioner, then the amount utilized by the Municipality should be reserved and given to the Government. 11.13 It is not in dispute that, after the proceedings, which were initiated under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and confirmed by the Tribunal, respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Vankaner Municipality had deposited the sale consideration before the State Government. Subsequently, vide Resolution dated 17.01.1980 (Exh.134) the State Government has cancelled the Resolution dated 07.09.1970. It is also not in dispute that the sanad (Exh.69) was also issued by the State Government in favour of the present appellant-original plaintiff. 11.14 DW-1 Chief Officer of Vankaner Municipality is examined at Exh.131 who, in his deposition, has stated that pursuant to the general board resolution passed by the respondent-Nagarpalika on 24.11.1970, an advertisement was issued in the Gujrati newspaper “Nutan Saurashtra” on 04.12.1970 for the auction of the aforesaid land. He has deposed that the aforesaid exercise was carried out pursuant to the notification dated 26.07.1955. That plots of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 are huge plots and the land which comes within the limits of the Municipality belongs to the State Government. It is further elicited in his cross-examination that in the year 1969, the land of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 paikee was divided into various plots being Plot Nos.14 to 29. Thus, as per the testimony of the Chief Officer, the land of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 was converted into various plots i.e. Plot No. 14 to 29 in the year 1969. Both the courts below have ignored this important aspect and has proceeded on the basis that since there was only a waste land and the notification dated 26.07.1955 only envisaged the plots of land respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Vankaner Municipality has no authority to sell the land. Both the courts below have ignored this important aspect and has proceeded on the basis that since there was only a waste land and the notification dated 26.07.1955 only envisaged the plots of land respondent no. 3-original defendant no. 3-Vankaner Municipality has no authority to sell the land. 11.15 Both the courts below have construed the notification dated 26.07.1955 by observing that the Municipality was only entitled to sell the vacant plots situated within its limits and since the land of Revenue Survey No. 147/1 was a waste land, they were not entitled to sell the same as they belong to the government. 11.16 The aforesaid observations are based on the Resolution dated 07.09.1970. Both the courts below have misinterpreted the provisions of Resolution dated 07.09.1970 by holding that the Municipality had no authority to sell the same lands. As observed hereinabove, the plots of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 14/1 were already sold to the appellant on 23.1.1970 prior to issuance of the clarificatory resolution dated 07.09.1970. The said Resolution does not prescribe absolute bar of selling the government waste lands by the Municipality and it was observed that, if the same is sold without obtaining any permission, the amount realized by the Municipality should be credited to the Government. Subsequently, the aforesaid resolution is also set aside by the State Government vide Resolution dated 17.01.1980. Thus, the question of treating the plots of land bearing Revenue Survey no. 147/1 as government waste land does not arise in light of the subsequent resolution 17.01.1980. 11.17 Thus, question no. 1 stands answered in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff and it is held that the Municipality was entitled to sell the plots of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 to the appellant-original plaintiff since the same vested in it as per the Notification dated 26.07.1955. 11.18 So far as questions no. 2 and 3 are concerned, both the courts below have heavily placed reliance on the proceedings initiated under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the District Collector, and thereafter, by the Tribunal. As per the reasons recorded hereinabove while answering question no. 1, the land of Revenue Survey no. 147/1 was already converted into plots by the Municipality in the year 1969 after the Resolution dated 26.07.1955. As per the reasons recorded hereinabove while answering question no. 1, the land of Revenue Survey no. 147/1 was already converted into plots by the Municipality in the year 1969 after the Resolution dated 26.07.1955. Thereafter, such plots are not retained by the State Government and vide Resolution dated 07.09.1970, the Municipality is authorized to sell land belonging to Kharaba (waste land) after obtaining the permission of the District Collector, and if the same are already sold, the sale consideration shall be credited to the government. Thus, prior to issuance of the Resolution dated 07.09.1970, the land bearing Revenue Survey no. 147/1 is already converted into various plots and are also sold. The entire proceedings initiated under section 37/1 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 pertains to interpretation of the Resolution dated 07.09.1970. The authorities and the Tribunal have misinterpreted the Resolution dated 07.09.1970 and have committed an error in holding that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 vested in the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-original plaintiff have been issued sanad (Exh.69) by the State Government after the sale deed was registered in the year 1972. Thus, the District Collector had no right or authority to hand over the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 147/1 to the respondent no. 2 Board for carrying out its activities. 11.19 This court in the case of Govind Murji Patel (Karai) vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 (1) GLR 671 has observed that, if the sanad has been issued in pursuance of the order passed by the revenue authority for allotment of the land the powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code of revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised since the execution of the sanad is an agreement between the purchaser of the land/allottee of the land and the State Government. 11.20 The aforesaid judgment was subsequently considered by this court in the case of Surendranagar Dudhrej Municipality vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 AIR (CC) 01732, wherein while placing reliance upon the judgment of Govind Murji Patel (supra) has observed thus: “Besides the above, there has never been any challenge to the Sanad, in the form of the Lease Deed, by the Municipality. As per the settled position of law elaborated in the case of Govind Murji Patel (Kerai) vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), a Sanad issued in valid exercise of power is binding on the parties unless and until it is set aside in due course of law. The Sanad or Lease Deed dated January, 1947 in favour of the respondent no. 2 is still in existence and was in existence even before the three notifications of the State of Saurashtra dated 15.03.1951, 02.07.1955 and 27.12.1955 were issued. The Lease Deed has never been questioned in any legal proceedings by the Municipality and the perpetual leasehold rights granted by it to respondent no. 2 on the payment of the market price prevailing at the relevant point of time, are still in existence. Nothing to dispute this position has been produced on record by the Municipality.” 11.21 Thus, both the courts below have erred in placing reliance on the proceedings before the Tribunal. The sale deed and the sanad issued to the appellant are still in existence and the same are binding on the parties unless and until it is set aside in due course of law. The questions no. 2 and 3 stand answered accordingly. 11.22 The upshot of the above discussion is that both the courts below have committed an error in interpreting the provisions of the Notification dated 26.07.1955, Resolution dated 07.09.1970 and the Resolution dated 17.01.1980. The question no. 4 stands answered accordingly. 11.23 Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned advocates for the appellant on the decision of this court in case of the Mangrol Municipality. It is not in dispute that in the judgment rendered in the case of Mangrol Municipality (supra), this court in a similar issue dealing with notifications dated 07.07.1955 issued in the case of the Mangrol Municipality, which is pari materia to the notification dated 26.07.1955 (Exh.133) issued in case of the Wankaner Municipality with context of section 50 of Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 has observed thus: “16. Thus, considering the provision of Section 50(2) of the Act and in view of the above declaration of law, the effect of the notification issued under Section 50 of the Act, transferring all open plots within the limits of Municipality to the Municipality by the State Government is that all rights and title in the plots covered by the notification stand transferred in favour of the Municipality for the purposes as provided in the said provision. On transfer of such open plot to the Municipality, the State Government, including the Collector will have no right or power to deal with such plot. 17...........Having not received the suit plot from the State authorities after the same was handed over by the S.T. Corporation, in my view, the plaintiff was justified in claiming possession of the suit plot by seeking declaration that by virtue of the notification, the plaintiff Municipality had acquired rights, title and interest in the suit plot and the defendants be directed to handover the possession of the suit plot to the plaintiff.” 12. The aforesaid judgment in the case of Mangrol Municipality will not squarely apply to the facts of the present case since the entire controversy raised in the present set of appeals rests on the Notification dated 07.09.1970 which was issued clarifying the Notification dated 26.7.1955 apropos to Kharaba land. 13. On the bedrock of the foregoing observations and analysis, it is held that the courts below have committed a legal error in disallowing the suits. The questions framed are answered in favour of the appellants. The judgment and decree of the trial court as upheld by the appellate court is reversed. The suit is decreed in favour of the appellants. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall hand over possession of the land in question to the appellants. The appellants are entitled to claim right, title and interest on the concerned property. The second appeals are hereby allowed and disposed of accordingly. R&P be sent back to concerned trial Court. The present appeals stand disposed of, accordingly. 14. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.