Dismissed

Harindar Kalara v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC7 Oct 2019SCA/15120/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses multiple special civil applications concerning GIDC plots and restoration policies. The court observed that grievances could be redressed under the 2016 policy if petitioners withdrew the petitions and made fresh applications personally. The petitions were disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of as withdrawn; notice discharged; respondents directed to consider applications per 2016 policy.

Harindar Kalara Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/15120/2014 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15120 of 2014

¶4

With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15121 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15122 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15123 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15124 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15125 of 2014 With

¶5

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15126 of 2014

¶6

========================================================== HARINDAR KALARA

¶7

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

NIYATI D CHAUHAN(9082) for the Petitioner(s) No. MS.SHRUTI PATHAK, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15120 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15121 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15122 of 2014

¶11

MR.DHWAN JAYSWAL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15123 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15124 of 2014

¶12

MR.SOAHAM JOSHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15125 of 2014 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15126 of 2014

¶13

MR RD DAVE(264) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶16

Date : 07/10/2019

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/SCA/15120/2014 ORDER

¶20

1.Mr.R.D.Dave, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent nos.2 to 4 has tendered further affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent-G.I.D.C. The same is
ordered to be taken on record.

¶21

2.On perusal of the contents of the affidavit, it
is revealed that the respondent-G.I.D.C. has issued
circular dated 28.01.2016 in respect of the policy
for restoration of possession of the plots which are
recovered from the persons, who have been alloted
plots.

¶22

3. It is stated in Paragraphs No.4 and 5 of the
affidavit as under:-

¶23

“4. I state that the petitioner in each of the petition nos.15120 to 15126 of 2014 through power of attorney made representations dated 12.06.2017, instead of make it personally. GIDC fixed personal hearing on 31.07.2017 & 28.08.2017. However, the petitioners did not remained present in hearing. There are various conditions in the policy for which consent of the petitioner was required. Hence, Head Office of GIDC rejected the representations which is informed vide communication dated 22.09.2017 sent to each of the petitioners.

¶24

5. I state that in view of pendency of these petitions, GIDC has not put plots in question to auction so far. I further state that it seems that the petitioners of each petition have lost interest who are residing at Delhi and hence, acting through Power of Attorney which whom the petitioners has made arrangement.”

¶25

4. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is further stated on oath that the respondent-G.I.D.C. has not put the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

C/SCA/15120/2014 ORDER

¶28

plots in question to auction and the same are
available which can be restored pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the policy of 2016 referred herein
above.

¶29

5.Therefore, as per the condition of the policy
plot holders to whom allotment was made by the
respondent-G.I.D.C. are personally entitled to make
an application for restoration and not through power
of attorney holders, as it is device adopted to
illegally transfer plots and to prevent it, plot
holders shall have to make application personally.
Moreover, as per the Condition No.3 of the policy,
the petitioners are required to withdraw these
petitions in order to avail the benefits of policy of
2016 in addition to making payment with regard to
charges.

¶30

6.Ms.Niyati Chauhan, learned advocate for the
petitioners makes a statement that the petitioner in
each of the petition are agreeable to abide by terms
and conditions including entire payment as per terms
and conditions of the policy of 2016 which is
produced along with affidavit at Annexure-R-1 at Page
Nos.83 to 85.

¶31

7.Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted
that only the petitioners shall make an application
for restoration of the plots which were allotted to
them which are subject matter of the present
petitions. She further states that the petitioners
shall make an application within a period of four

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

C/SCA/15120/2014 ORDER

¶34

weeks from today as per the policy of 2016 and the
respondent-G.I.D.C. may consider this application in
terms of policy of 2016 within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of such application.
It is also made clear that the petitioners shall
strictly abide to the terms and conditions of the
policy of 2016.

¶35

8.In view of the aforesaid fact situation, the
petitions would not survive, as the grievance of the
petitioners would be redressed by the respondent-
G.I.D.C. in terms of policy of 2016. The respondent-
G.I.D.C. shall consider application to be made by
petitioners within eights weeks from the date of
receipt of such application strictly as per terms of
policy of 2016.

¶36

9. Learned advocate for the petitioners, therefore,
under the instructions, seeks permission to withdraw
the respective petitions so as to avail the benefits
of policy of 2016.

¶37

The petitions are disposed of, as withdrawn.
Notice is discharged.

¶38

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶39

GIRISH

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Harindar Kalara v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harindar Kalara v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitinbhai Shankarlal Jani Vs State of Gujarat

Vipul R Shah Rupali Medical & Provision Vs Director General - Office of Director General Competition

Moti Enterprises Vs Union of India

Mangubhai Kikabhai Aahir Vs the State of Gujarat

Mehul Parsottambhai Sangani Vs State of Gujarat

Sakshi S Agrawal Vs State of Gujarat