IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6053-6054 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.29342-29343 of 2008)

Morbi Nagarpalika                 ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Bhavanbhai Khodabhai Patel & Anr. Etc.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

The  then  Administrator  of  Morbi  Nagar  Palika  sold  

land measuring 158.50 sq. meter to the respondents sometime  

in June, 1986.  After the elected body took over the reins of  

the Nagar Palika (hereinafter referred as ‘the appellant’),  

respondent No.1 was directed not to raise construction on the  

land in question because it was felt that the transaction  

made  by  the  then  Administrator  was  contrary  to  law  and  

against the interest of the appellant.   

Respondent  No.1  challenged  the  action  of  the  

appellant in R.C.S. No.301/1986 and sought a declaration that  

the appellant has no right, power and authority to interfere  

with his use and occupation of the land.  He also prayed for  

grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant from  

interfering  with  his  possession  over  the  suit  land.  The  

appellant also filed Civil Suit No.44/1988 for declaring the  

sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 as nullity.

...2/-

- 2 -  

By common judgment dated 28.1.2002, the trial Court  

decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1 and dismissed the  

one filed by the appellant.  Civil Appeal Nos.9/2002 and  

10/2002  filed  by  the  appellant  were  dismissed  by  Joint  

District  Judge,  Fast  Track  Court  No.10,  Morbi  vide  its  

judgment  dated  15.11.2006   The  appellate  judgment  was  

confirmed by the High Court by dismissing the second appeals  

preferred by the appellant by observing that no substantial  

question of law is involved therein.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  In  

our opinion, the High Court was not justified in holding that  

no substantial question of law was involved in the second  

appeals.  A careful scrutiny of the record shows that in the  

appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial  

court, the appellant had questioned the sale effected by the  

then Administrator in favour of respondent no.1 on the ground  

that in view of Section 263(2)(c) of the Gujarat Municipality  

Act, 1963, the suit land vested in the State Government and  

the Administrator had no jurisdiction to sell the same to  

respondent No.1 and that too by private negotiations.  The  

same questions were also raised before the High Court in the  

second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure.   The  lower  appellate  Court  did  consider  and  

negatived those pleas, but the High Court did not even advert  

to the same and dismissed the second appeals by making a  

cryptic  observation  that  no  question  of  law  arises  for  

consideration.

In our view, the following substantial questions of  

law were involved in the second appeals:

...3/-

- 3 -  

“(1) Whether the property vested in the Municipality  shall, during the period of supersession, vest in the  State  Government  and  the  Administrator  was  not  authorized to sell the same; and,

(2)  Whether  the  Administrator  could  sell  the  municipal property by private negotiation?”

As  the  aforesaid  two  questions  of  law  arise  in  the  

second appeals, we are of the view that the matter deserves to  

be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal of the second  

appeals.   

Accordingly,  the  appeals  are  allowed,  impugned  order  

rendered  by  the  High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the  matter  is  

remitted  to  the  High  Court  to  frame  the  aforesaid  two  

substantial  questions  of  law  in  the  second  appeals  and,  

thereafter decide the same.

Needless to say that this order shall not preclude the  

High Court from framing any other substantial question of law,  

if, in its opinion, such a question of law arises in the second  

appeals.

......................J.               [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.               [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 04, 2009.