Dismissed

Thakarshibhai Karsanbhai Patel, Partners of Kathiyawad Farms v. State of Gujarat through the Secretary

Gujarat HC3 Jul 2018LPA/645/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed against an interim order of the Single Judge. The Single Judge had permitted construction on land allotted to a third party while protecting the appellants' interests. The High Court held the appeal was misconceived and dismissed it with the civil application for stay. Land dispute context noted.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal and the consequential civil application for stay are dismissed.

Thakarshibhai Karsanbhai Patel, Partners of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/LPA/645/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 645 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

THAKARSHIBHAI KARSANBHAI PATEL, PARTNERS OF KATHIYAWAD FARMS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE SECRETARY

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR ASPI M KAPADIA(1865) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 MR DM DEVNANI, AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3 MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶11

Date : 03/07/2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

¶13

1.Civil Application No.2 of 2018 is filed
for condonation of delay caused in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal. However, it is brought to
our notice by the office that there is no delay
caused in filing the appeal. Hence, no orders are
required to be passed on this civil application.
Accordingly, this civil application is disposed
off. With the consent of learned advocates for
the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

¶14

2.This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

C/LPA/645/2018 ORDER

¶17

Letters Patent against the interim order dated
2.5.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil
Application No.16764 of 2013.

¶18

3.Heard learned advocate Mr.Aspi Kapadia
for the original appellants-original petitioners,
learned advocate Mr.Rao for respondent no.4 and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani
for respondent no.1 and 2.

¶19

4.Learned advocate Mr.Kapadia submitted
that the appellants-original petitioners have
filed the aforesaid petition challenging the
order dated 4.8.2012 passed by the Special
Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision
Application No.9 of 2006 as well as the order
dated 5.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Surat in
Appeal as well as the order dated 12.9.2005
passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi prant,
Surat. By the said order, the land of the
petitioners was forfeited in favour of the
government. In the said petition, the learned
Single Judge passed the interim order on
13.12.2013 by which the direction is given to the
respondent-state government that the land in
question shall not be allotted to any person.
Thereafter, learned Single Judge passed an order
on 20.2.2018, by which the Court Commissioner is

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

C/LPA/645/2018 ORDER

¶22

appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the
status and position of the land in question. It
is submitted that after considering the report of
the Court Commissioner, the learned Single Judge
passed an order on 17.4.2018. The respondent no.4
is impleaded as party respondent as the state
government has alloted the land adjacent to the
land of the petitioner in favour of respondent
no.4. While passing the order dated 17.4.2018,
the learned Single Judge directed the respondent-
state authorities to ensure that the respondent
no.4-Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation, may
not be allowed to carry out any further
construction on the disputed land. Learned
advocate Mr.Kapadia thereafter submitted that by
way of the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the respondent no.4 is permitted to
carry out the construction on the land which is
allotted by the respondent-state government to
the said respondent vide order dated 5.8.2005.
Thus, the learned Single Judge modified the
earlier order passed on 17.4.2018 and therefore
this appeal is filed against the said interim
order.

¶23

5.It is contended that the respondent no.4
is carrying out the construction activity in the
land in question and therefore the order passed
by the learned Single Judge be set aside and

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

C/LPA/645/2018 ORDER

¶26

respondent no.4 be restrained from carrying out
any construction activity in the land in
question.

¶27

6.On the other hand, learned AGP submitted
on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply filed in
the present appeal that the land in dispute is
bearing survey no.149 paiki admeasuring 30300
sq.mtrs. village Vesu, Taluka Majura, District
Surat whereas the land allotted to respondent
no.4 is land admeasuring 79848 sq.mtrs. bearing
survey no.149/1/B. Thus, the land in question is
different than the parcel of land allotted to
respondent no.4. It is further submitted that
learned Single Judge has protected the interest
of the present appellant and therefore this Court
may not interfere with the interim order passed
by the learned Single Judge.

¶28

7.Learned advocate Mr.Rao appearing for
the respondent no.4 has also supported the
submissions canvassed by learned Assistant
Government Pleader.

¶29

8.Having considered the submissions
canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the
parties and having gone through the material
produced on record, it is revealed that while
passing the impugned order on 2.5.2018, the

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

C/LPA/645/2018 ORDER

¶32

learned Single Judge has, though, permitted the
respondent no.4 to carry out the construction on
the land which is allotted by the respondent-
state vide order dated 5.8.2005 and possession
receipt of the same was issued on 27.9.2005,
interest of the appellants is also taken care of.
In paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the learned
Single Judge has specifically observed that the
apprehension expressed by learned advocate for
the petitioner that by granting such permission,
respondent no.4 will also put up construction on
the land in question and therefore the learned
Single Judge has further directed the respondent-
state to see to it that the construction is
carried out by the respondent no.4 upon the land
which was allotted to respondent no.4. It is
further observed by learned Single Judge that
while doing so, the demarcation of the land which
was carried out by DILR shall be taken into
consideration. The learned Single Judge has
further observed that respondent no.4 shall not
be allowed to carry out any construction, if the
land allotted in favour of respondent no.4 does
not fall within the limits of demarcated portion.

¶33

9.Thus, in view of the aforesaid direction
issued by the learned Single Judge, we are of the
view that the learned Single Judge has protected
the interest of the appellants also and therefore

¶34

Page 5 of 6

¶35

C/LPA/645/2018 ORDER

¶36

the present appeal is misconceived. It is further
required to be noted that the civil application
as well as the Special Civil Application are
pending before the learned Single Judge for
further hearing.

¶37

10.In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to
entertain this appeal which is filed against the
interim order passed by the learned Single Judge
in which interest of the appellants is also
protected. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, civil application for stay also
stands dismissed.

¶38

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

¶39

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶40

SRILATHA

¶41

Page 6 of 6

Thakarshibhai Karsanbhai Patel, Partners of Kathiyawad Farms v. State of Gujarat through the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakarshibhai Karsanbhai Patel, Partners of Kathiyawad Farms v. State of Gujarat through the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradipkumar Ramanlal Vayeda Vs Vikramsinh Jadeja (Retired)

Valkubhai Jivabhai Govaliya Vs State of Gujarat

Bhavnaben Rajeshbhai Kachhadiya Vs State of Gujarat through the Designated Authority

Harjibhai Pursottambhai Vs Mukeshkumar G

Jagrutiben Jerambhai Tandel Vs B J Brahmbhatt State of Gujarat

Ayeshaben Wd/O Karimkhan Sidikhan Bloch Vs State of Gujarat