Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the demolition of a shop structure belonging to the appellant, Mahesh Nandiram Khilolani, by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The appellant claimed ownership of the property at Ravpura, Vadodara, having purchased it in 2014 from Sureshchandra Khilolani. The Standing Committee of the Corporation had passed a resolution in 1972 for implementing a road line abutting the property. A civil suit (RCS No.1827/1994) filed by the predecessor against the Corporation was dismissed in 2016 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. On 20.02.2017, the Corporation issued a demolition notice alleging the construction stood on a public road. The appellant filed representations in January and February 2017 requesting withdrawal of the road line proposal under Section 279 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. In 2017, he filed Special Civil Application No.4562 of 2017 seeking quashing of the notice and a mandamus to acquire the land for road widening. During the pendency of that petition, the demolition was carried out. The appellant did not amend the writ petition to challenge the demolition action, and the petition was dismissed as infructuous on 16.01.2023. This order was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1368 of 2024 on 05.09.2024, which however recorded that the petitioner had liberty to avail appropriate remedy for the reliefs sought. Following this, the appellant made a fresh representation to the Corporation seeking revival of his earlier representations, and then filed a second writ petition, Special Civil Application No.1707 of 2025. In this petition, he sought compensation for illegal removal of the structure and a decision on the legality of the 2017 notice. The learned Single Judge dismissed this petition on 25.11.2025, holding that it was a second round of litigation for the same cause of action and not maintainable. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench heard the appeal and dismissed it. The Court observed that the appellant had not challenged the demolition itself in the first round and the writ had become infructuous. The earlier Division Bench had specifically noted that the petitioner should have amended the writ petition, and the dismissal as infructuous could not be interfered with. The second writ sought to revive the same reliefs and was therefore barred. The Court clarified that the dismissal would not affect the liberty to approach the civil court for the complex factual issues involved, as had been granted in the earlier proceedings. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with the civil application for stay being disposed of.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Second Writ – Successive Writ on Same Cause Barred – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11; Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Sections 279, 274 – The petitioner filed a second writ petition in 2025 seeking compensation for demolition and reconsideration of a demolition notice dated 20.02.2017. The first writ petition (SCA 4562/2017) challenging the same notice was dismissed as infructuous because the construction had been demolished during its pendency and the petitioner failed to amend the petition to challenge the demolition. The dismissal was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1368/2024. The Court held that the second writ was not maintainable as it sought to revive reliefs that could have been claimed in the earlier petition. Held that the second round of litigation was impermissible and the writ was rightly dismissed (Paras 14-18). B) Demolition During Pendency – Duty to Amend Writ Petition – Failure to Challenge Demolition Renders Petition Infructuous – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11; Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Section 279 – The original writ petition challenged only the show‑cause notice dated 20.02.2017, but the demolition was carried out while the petition was pending. The Division Bench in the first round (LPA No.1368/2024) had observed that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to challenge the demolition action by seeking amendment of the writ petition. The Court in the present appeal reiterated that the petitioner’s failure to do so led to the writ being rendered infructuous, and he cannot now revive the challenge (Paras 8‑10, 14‑15). C) Civil Remedy – Complex Questions of Fact – Approach to Civil Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The Court kept open the liberty granted by the Single Judge in SCA 4562/2017 (affirmed in LPA No.1368/2024) for the petitioner to avail civil remedy regarding claims of illegal demolition and compensation, as the issues involved complex questions of fact. Held that the dismissal of the present appeal would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing such civil remedy (Paras 16‑18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a fresh writ petition seeking compensation for demolition and reconsideration of a notice is maintainable when the earlier writ petition challenging the same notice was dismissed as infructuous after demolition, and the legality of demolition was not challenged.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, affirming the dismissal of Special Civil Application No.1707 of 2025. It held that the second writ petition was not maintainable as it sought to revive the cause of action from the first writ which was dismissed as infructuous. The court clarified that the petitioner may pursue civil remedies as per the liberty granted earlier, and the dismissal would not affect such civil remedy. Consequently, the civil application for stay was disposed of.
Law Points
- Successive writ petitions on same cause not maintainable
- Dismissal of earlier writ as infructuous bars subsequent writ on same cause
- Challenge to demolition must be made by amending petition if demolition occurs during pendency
- Section 279 of Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act
- 1949 regarding withdrawal of road line
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
