JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. These intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment passed in Special Civil Application No. 13299 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021 disposing of the petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for damages for the action that corporation had caused and imposing a token cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the corporation in favour of the petitioner. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: 2. Petitioner which is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act filed Special Civil Application No. 13297 of 2021 essentially questioning the action of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (‘AMC’ for short) who had sealed the park established by the petitioner and demolished certain structures existing in the park on the ground of same being illegal. 3. AMC who had appeared on service of notice had filed the reply statement denying the averments made in the writ application except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder and contending, inter-alia, that petitioner was granted permission to use the land/plot measuring 50 x 50 sq. mtrs. at Mouje Vejalpur in Final Plot No. 220 of T.P. Scheme No. 1 with a condition that no permanent structure can be put up on the said plot and same has to be used by the people of all communities for carrying out extra co-curricular activities, sports, exercise and cultural activity and said permissive use granted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (For short ‘AUDA’) was for a period of one year and no right vested with the petitioner to use the said land unilaterally and as such the petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned Single Judge noticed that petitioner with an intention to promote the activity of recreation, etc. had requested the then AUDA within whose jurisdiction the plot fell for allotment, had resulted in a communication dated 5.1.2004 being forwarded by AUDA to the petitioner which was followed by communication dated 29.9.2004 clearly indicating thereunder that petitioner society would not be in a position to carry out any civil or permanent construction over the land permitted to be used but utilise the plot only for extra curriculum activity for a period of one year. The learned Single Judge also noticed that from time to time funds were provided by various agencies including the grant from the Member of Parliament for the setting up of infrastructural facilities, water supply, electricity connection and water connection and records disclose that despite there being an offer by the successor in the case of AUDA namely AMC offering the petitioner the public private participation for which the consent had also been given by the petitioner on being asked by AMC and thereafter eviction notice had been issued by AMC calling upon the petitioner to vacate and handover possession, which had not been complied by the petitioner and as such time sought for by the petitioner to vacate the park not having been granted, it resulted in notice dated 25.2.2020 being issued to the petitioner to seal the park and time sought for by petitioner was not granted. As a result of this, park came to be sealed on 26.2.2020 and as such learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that prima facie the nature of the prayers made in the petition would indicate that act of demolition carrying away the property located in the park was for award of damages and restoration of the property which requires detailed fact-finding inquiry and leading of evidence being impermissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reserved right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for seeking damages. Hence, the petition came to be disposed of by arriving at a conclusion that award of Rs. 25,000/- as costs to petitioner on the ground that petitioner organisation which had been remained in possession of the disputed property for over a period of long years, deserved better treatment and on account of demolition of whatsoever structures had awarded said costs. 5. Writ applicant not being satisfied with the limited prayer that was granted and reiterating that writ court ought to have granted all the prayers that were sought for in the Special Civil Applications, has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 434 of 2022. Whereas AMC and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by the award of damages of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner is before this Court assailing the same. Hence, these two appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 6. It is the contention of Mr. Whereas AMC and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by the award of damages of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner is before this Court assailing the same. Hence, these two appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 6. It is the contention of Mr. Mohammed Hasan Jowher, party appearing in person on behalf of writ applicant that learned Single Judge had committed a serious irregularity in not granting the prayers sought for in the petition in its entirety. He would submit that originally land was in the ownership of AUDA and subsequently transferred to AMC and the learned Single Judge has already held that petitioner has been wronged and as such the only course which was left open to the learned Single Judge was to award the damages which was sought for by writ applicant by way of an alternate prayer as more fully indicated in the Letters Patent Appeal. He would also submit that there is blatant violation of the law by the AMC authorities and Court cannot become a silent spectator or remain as helpless observer of executive excess. He would submit that AMC being an instrumentality of the State was required to act in a fair and reasonable manner and contrary to the same has exhibited a hostile attitude towards petitioner namely the writ applicant which is an Non-Government Organisation (For short ‘NGO’) which had established the garden/park in the subject park and nurtured it for 17 long years. He would submit a legal obligation was cast on the statutory authorities like AMC and instead of extending their hand to the petitioner in fulfilling the said obligation, they have acted in a highly illegal manner by not only sealing the park but also not permitting the writ applicant to retrieve its material after passing the order of sealing and in a barbaric manner directed the petitioner to vacate the park and bulldozed the entire park reducing its expensive structures, gadgets and the stocks to sheer scrap. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that appellant is a public charitable trust led by some of India’s distinguished achievers and had been adjudged as one of the India’s 13 best NGO’s and had been partnered by prominent international companies and was running number of unique centres for multi-dimensional empowerment across Gujarat, offering non-formal education, science appreciation, promoting inter-faith harmony and on the advice of experts to explore recreational activity as a medium to achieve these objects, it had approached AUDA and offered to set up a unique multi-purpose park at its own cost, if guaranteed long term management and holding which resulted in a letter of allotment dated 5.1.2004 and on being objected to restructuring the term of allotment of one year resulted in a fresh communication dated 29.9.2004 being forwarded by AUDA to the petitioner whereunder it permitted the petitioner for installation of sports equipment which also removed the termination clause and oral assured of long term permission. 7. He would contend that petitioner established the park accordingly and possession of the park as continued with the petitioner society as it was managing successfully at considerable cost and at the instance of the donors a multi-purpose park for integrated socio-cultural empowerment had been commenced which received widespread accolades even by the Mayor and Councillors, etc. It is also contended by him that park was inaugurated by the then the Governor of Gujarat and also the Chairman of AUDA. It is also contended that several funds had flown for improvement of the park and by using the said money several initiatives at the park came to be established. He would contend the subsequent events happened even after the expiry of one year term fixed under the allotment letter and there was no steps taken for either evicting the writ applicant or calling upon it to vacate, since establishment of the park had earned widespread accolades. He would contend the subsequent events happened even after the expiry of one year term fixed under the allotment letter and there was no steps taken for either evicting the writ applicant or calling upon it to vacate, since establishment of the park had earned widespread accolades. Elaborating his submission with regard to the grounds urged before the learned Single Judge a well as urged in the present appeal, he would draw the attention of the Court to the correspondence that enured between the petitioner trust and various persons including the then former AUDA Chairman which ultimately resulted in consent sought for by the AMC for public private partnership arrangement which was preceded by notice of eviction and on being informed of the consent of the petitioner to have the PPP but on account of the threat of being dispossessed hanging on its head, it resulted in reminding the AMC for execution of PPP and simultaneously agreeing to vacate the park for which three months’ time to vacate was sought for and it was also agreed by the petitioner that it would vacate the park in such a manner and hand over the possession of the land on 30.4.2020 and on account of there being no reply, Board of Governors of the petitioner trust passed a resolution dated 20.2.2020 to vacate the park which was under duress. Yet, AMC sealed the park on 25.2.2020 and as such petitioner had started packing up and from the date of sealing petitioner had no access to its assets inside the park and despite submitting representation to unseal the park to enable the petitioner to disassemble the assets and remove the same to any other place by submitting representation from 25.2.2020 till 4.6.2021 did not yield any result but as a counterblast to the request made, AMC authorities without any notice demolished all the structures that were built and existing in the park and shifted the same to its own godown and even request made to the authorities to permit the petitioner to retrieve the valuables lying at the park was not permitted and hence, these acts had been noticed by the learned Single Judge as being highhanded act and yet not awarded any reasonable compensation and/or writ of mandamus was not issued directing the AMC to restore the park to the petitioner which was used by the people of the locality and who are now being deprived of the same. Hence, he prays for grant of the prayer sought for before the learned Single Judge and reiterated in the appeal. 8. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the AMC would submit that subject land is reserved for a particular purpose and it cannot be used for any other purpose. He would submit that subject land admittedly belonged to AMC and no application was filed under Section 254 of the Gujarat Municipal Corporations Act to put up any construction in the land by petitioner and till date petitioner has not placed on record any such application having been filed. He would submit that way back in the year 2017 writ applicant had been asked to vacate and handover possession of the area and petitioner has also been called upon to produce the authority under which it is in occupation of the land and there being no such proof having been tendered, the occupation of the writ applicant had become illegal. He would submit that even on 3.10.2018 a notice came to be issued by the Estate Officer of AMC to the writ applicant calling upon the writ applicant to handover vacant possession of the plot and contending that writ applicant had no authority to put up any permanent structures and what was permitted initially by the predecessor in interest of AMC was only to the extent of permitting the petitioner to utilise the land as a park in open space and continuation beyond period of one year was itself illegal and without authority of law. It is further contended that a tender has been floated for maintenance of garden and constructing the garden in the garden area viz. subject land and also to construct the underground tank at a cost of Rs. 28 lakh and same is being processed. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record prima-facie perusal of detailed order passed by the learned single Judge, it is quite clear and visible while dealing with the grievance of the appellant, learned single Judge has examined not only the legally permissible stand of the appellant but has also examined the material placed before the Court. After analysing the entire material placed before the Court, conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from voice of any non-application of mind nor reflects any perversity nor it can be said to be irrational. Detailed conclusion which has been arrived is on the basis of practically analysing the material on record. We deem it proper to quote relevant conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge: “5.4 Admittedly therefore, though the letter of allotment specifically states that the plot of land namely the Final Plot T.P. 20 was reserved for gardens and was allotted to the petitioner for a period of one year, the same effectively was handed over in the year 2006 to the petitioner. There appears to be no complaint on the part of the authorities which owned the plot, as far as its usage was concerned for period of 13 years from 2004 to 2017. There appears to be no complaint on the part of the authorities which owned the plot, as far as its usage was concerned for period of 13 years from 2004 to 2017. In October 2017 the AMC sprung into action asking the petitioner to come forth and produce necessary evidence for continuing the possession for the plot in question which was reserved for gardens. Communications were exchanged inter se between the petitioner and the Corporation which indicate that what was contemplated was at the hands of the petitioner that it was willing to enter into public private partnership with the Corporation in carrying out the activities for which the plot was reserved i.e. for gardens. The Corporation itself had in principle agreed to it. However, it appears that nothing was either done on behalf of the Corporation nor the follow up was made by the petitioner as to the status of arrangement that was entered into namely Public Private Partnership Agreement by signing a Memorandum of Understanding. 5.5 On 25.02.2020, the Corporation sealed the park pursuant to the notices issued in January 2020 and when a request was made by the petitioner for some time to vacate the land. Admittedly from the time when the park was sealed in February 2020 to the time when final demolition was carried out on 04.06.2021 majority of the period as can be taken judicial notice of, was a period when the State and the Country at large was undergoing a wave what was popularly called the “Second Wave” of the pandemic. Neither of the parties therefore, namely, the petitioner or the Corporation could be faulted with not acting on the Public Private Partnership MOU or having given them the timeline to vacate. The averment in the affidavit therefore that the petitioner did not vacate the land which was initially given to them and on a request for three months, the implementation had to be carried out because sixteen months thereafter the land was not vacated. The averment in the affidavit therefore that the petitioner did not vacate the land which was initially given to them and on a request for three months, the implementation had to be carried out because sixteen months thereafter the land was not vacated. 5.6 From the credentials of the Society and the work that it carried out, it is evident that though no right vested in the Society to continue with the possession of the land inasmuch that it was initially given for a period of one year and with the passage of time if it retained the land no right vested in it, the subsequent correspondence between the Corporation and the petitioner Society would indicate that there was a tacit agreement that in the event the petitioner was willing to enter into a Public Private Partnership Arrangement to continue possession with the plot for which its use was already being put to i.e. for gardens, the purpose for which it was reserved, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation having waited for 16 months, namely, from February 2020 to June 2021 possibly because of the pandemic carried out large scale destruction of the structures on the land in question. The photographs evidencing that are on record. 6. Prima-facie, the nature of prayers made in the petition would indicate that the act of demolition, carrying away of properties, the exchange of correspondences inter se and the prayer for damages and restoration of property would require a detailed fact finding inquiry and leading of evidence, which this Court may not be able to undertake with its restrictions and impressibility in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 10. Learned single Judge found that the grievance of writ applicant with regard to action of the Corporation reflects a highly disputed question for the fact which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction and as such has left open the right of petitioner to seek remedy of damages before the competent Civil Court and accordingly petition came to be disposed of. The said observations are also seems relevant which are reproduced hereunder: “8. From the eviction notices, it is evident that the case of the Corporation is that the final plot is reserved for gardens. The said observations are also seems relevant which are reproduced hereunder: “8. From the eviction notices, it is evident that the case of the Corporation is that the final plot is reserved for gardens. This Court cannot shut its eye to the documents placed on record which would indicate that it was being used for the purposes of garden and other recreational activities as it is evident from the photographs and the communications on record. These facts are not facts which would deter the Court from not exercising its right under Article 226 under the guise of it being a disputed question of fact. The fact is as is evident from record that the land was already being put to use as a garden. Though the allotment was made for a period of one year, the plot continued to remain in possession of the petitioner for over a period of 15 years though without any rightful occupation, the organization that carried out these activities deserve better treatment. In context of the prayers that it was meted out shabby treatment in terms of carrying out large scale demolition of property and causing loss to the tune of several crores of rupees is a question which would require a detailed fact finding inquiry and leading of evidence. 9. The court will rest its case here. The plot in question admittedly till date is being reserved for a public garden. In the event the Corporation still wants to use the same for a public garden as it is so made out in the affidavit-in-reply and in the event the petitioner is willing to enter into a Public Private Partnership, the parties can enter into such an agreement for carrying out the purposes for which the plot is reserved. As far as the legality of the eviction and the manner in which it was carried out, it is evident that the timeline was sought for vacating of the premises which the Corporation had not granted, or may be could not get the same vacated for over a period of sixteen months because of the pandemic. However, that it suddenly swung into action as a State machinery and demolished the large scale structures causing damage to the property of the petitioner was unwarranted. However, that it suddenly swung into action as a State machinery and demolished the large scale structures causing damage to the property of the petitioner was unwarranted. However, the fact that the petitioner had to vacate as the Society was over staying its tenure is evident, but the manner of eviction was unfair. 10. With these observations and with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate Court for seeking damages of the action that the Corporation has caused, this petition is disposed of. With a hope that in the event, irrespective of the unfolding proceeding events, if the Corporation wishes to undertake the usage of the plot which is already reserved for gardens and if the petitioner Trust is willing to offer its services, the entire issue be reconsidered and a fresh allotment of the plot for usage of garden at the hands of the petitioner through a Public Private Partnership be accordingly considered if it is possible in accordance with law by the Corporation, particularly looking to the credentials of the Society, which undertook the onerous task of using the property for encouragement of such activities. The petition is disposed of accordingly with a token costs of Rs. 25,000/- that may be paid by the Corporation. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.” 11. It would emerge from the aforesaid observations of the learned single Judge that remedy is left open to the writ applicant to seek for damage, if on account of act of the officials of Corporation some damage has taken place and learned single Judge has rightly observed that said issue cannot be examined on the basis of affidavits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of settled proposition of law. We see no reason to take a different view in absence of any distinguishable material brought before us. Hence, we see no reason to disturb the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge. Same are in consonance with the material placed on record. 12. By virtue of communication dated 05.01.2004, the writ applicant was permitted to use 200 square meters of land for one year only under the conditions stipulated thereunder, viz. the land was to be kept open for children of all communities in the surrounding area to use it for sports and exercises. 12. By virtue of communication dated 05.01.2004, the writ applicant was permitted to use 200 square meters of land for one year only under the conditions stipulated thereunder, viz. the land was to be kept open for children of all communities in the surrounding area to use it for sports and exercises. It was also made clear that the petitioner would not claim any kind of ownership either in present or in future. It was specifically made clear by AUDA that in the event of plot being used for other than the purpose stated thereunder, the Authority may prohibit the use of plot without giving any notice. It was also made clear that AUDA can discontinue the use of the plot by the petitioner at any time without notice, when the need arises for this plot. The conditions stipulated by AUDA for the use of the plot by the petitioner can be traceable to the communication dated 29.09.2004, which reads thus: “No civil or permanent construction can be done in this plot. This land is allotted for use by the people of all communities for sports, exercises as well as for non-communal cultural activities. The “SPRAT” organization will not have any right of ownership on this land nor will it be able to claim ownership in the future. AUDA has full authority to grant the land attached to this plot for educational, commercial or any other uses. “SPRAT” will only be able to move in its equipment after AUDA completes demarcation of the land and fencing at this place and completing the work of filling, levelling and pressing. At the request of the SPRAT, the Chairman has approved the installation of some sports equipment for AUDA-Muskaan. “SPRAT” will be responsible for their supervision. The equipment to be placed by “SPRAT” should be made keeping in mind the safety of the children. The sanction of the use of the above land is given for one year. If he Authority comes to know of any commercial or illegal use of this land, it may immediately stop its usage.” 13. From the stand of the authority, it is clear that under the Town Planning Scheme, the subject land was reserved for a particular purpose and same has to be used for the said purpose only. If he Authority comes to know of any commercial or illegal use of this land, it may immediately stop its usage.” 13. From the stand of the authority, it is clear that under the Town Planning Scheme, the subject land was reserved for a particular purpose and same has to be used for the said purpose only. The area was reserved for garden only under the Town Planning Scheme, and therefore, there was a necessity for the authority to keep reserved the said area for garden as it was obligatory on the part of authority to keep the Town Planning Scheme intact and therefore, the activities which was undertaken by the petitioner being category to the Town Planning Scheme, the authorities had to take action. 14. So far as grant of reasonable opportunity to the appellant is concerned, it is quite visible that hearing was extended on 17.10.2017 by issuance of first notice thereafter second notice was also issued on 06.11.2017 for a period of seven days and from the year 2017 onwards enough opportunity has been extended by informing the appellant to vacate the premises. Learned Senior counsel appearing for AMC would submit seven days notice was given on 03.02.2018, three days notice was again given on 01.01.2020 and further three days notice was given again on 28.01.2020 and thereafter on 29.01.2021 period has been enlarged and it is only thereafter possession of subject property has been resumed in the month of June, 2021 and their aspects has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition. It has also been observed from the stand of the authority that for constructing the auditorium or any other structure over the subject plot not a single application seeking permission of AMC was made by writ applicant as required under section 254 of GPMC Act. 15. The records on hand would disclose that writ applicant, in utter disregard to sections 253 and 254 of GPMC Act, has put up construction which are of permanent in nature and the photographs produced along with writ application as well as the present appeal would go to show that several permanent structures have been put up. 15. The records on hand would disclose that writ applicant, in utter disregard to sections 253 and 254 of GPMC Act, has put up construction which are of permanent in nature and the photographs produced along with writ application as well as the present appeal would go to show that several permanent structures have been put up. Though writ applicant would contend that the same were carried out after bringing them to the notice of the AMC Authorities, there is no material whatsoever to establish the fact that such constructions have come up after approval from the authorities or the approval was sought for from the authorities and pending consideration of such request the construction having been put up. It is in this background that the AMC Authorities from the year 2017 onwards have issued repeated notices to the writ applicant calling upon them to hand over possession of the land which is reserved for garden purposes. Under the guise of utilisaiton of the land for the garden, if the writ applicant has put up any structures, that too without permission, it cannot be gainsaid by the writ applicant that even in such circumstances the Corporation Authorities were not justified in taking appropriate action to resume possession. It may be true that after such notices were issued by the Corporation and before action was taken to resume possession, certain developments like conducting the programmes in the subject land, activities being carried on at the said land had taken place under the guise of either the officials of the Municipal Corporation or any other official, which can be construed as legalising the illegality perpetrated by the writ applicant. These acts would not confer any legal right in favour of the writ applicant to continue to be in possession of the subject land. The permissive use which was granted in the year 2004 was for a period of one year was never continued. However, the AMC seems to have not taken any steps and there was no follow up made by the petitioner with regard to the suggested project of Public Private Partnership agreement as suggested by the AMC by signing an MOU by the writ applicant. 16. However, the AMC seems to have not taken any steps and there was no follow up made by the petitioner with regard to the suggested project of Public Private Partnership agreement as suggested by the AMC by signing an MOU by the writ applicant. 16. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge would not call for any interference and it is in consonance with the material placed on record before the learned Single Judge. 17. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Letters Patent Appeal No. 434/2022 and 193/2022 are hereby dismissed and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 13299/2021 stands affirmed. (ii) No order as to costs.