2 days ago
Gujarat HC dismisses plea seeking injunction order to Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust from dispossessing family
Gujarat High Court (HC) on Tuesday dismissed a petition moved by a family living on a property within the Gandhi Ashram precincts, seeking injunction order to Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust (MGSAMT) from dispossessing them from two suit properties measuring a total of 6,000 square yards on which they claimed tenancy rights. The court of Justice Sanjeev Thaker passed the order.
The MGSAMT is implementing the Rs 1,200 crore Sabarmati Ashram redevelopment project.
The petition was moved by one Mohanbhai Rathod and his family members, who challenged the orders of a Small Causes Court and an appellate court rejecting their application to issue an injunction order for two properties over which they claimed tenancy rights.
Originally, the plaintiff had moved a house rent petition (HRP) suit before the Small Causes Court with reference to three properties — A, B and C — situated within Sabarmati Ashram precincts. Property B is a residential accommodation and properties A and C are plots of land. They had also sought injunction orders against the concerned trust of the ashram in 2014 while claiming tenancy rights.
The Small Causes Court had in 2019 granted injunction for Property B, while rejecting the application for properties A and C. This order was challenged before the appellate court which upheld the order. Following this, the plaintiff moved a revision application before the HC, which rejected the revision application while upholding the order of the appellate court.
The plaintiff, among other things, had argued that the properties in dispute were handed over to the grandfather of the plaintiff by the trustee of the trust concerned somewhere in 1930. They also argued that the defendant trust accepted the rent for the all three properties since 1977.
The defendant trust opposed the petition while arguing that there is nothing in the evidence, including rent receipts produced by the plaintiff, to suggest that the properties referred to in it are with respect to the property mentioned as Properties A and C.
