In an SCA challenging lack of enforcement of notices regarding land encroachment, the High Court dismissed the petition as belated and misconceived, refusing to direct a decision on an application dated 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/17412/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17412 of 2021
==========================================================
SOLANKI ROSHANKUMAR GANGARAMBHAI
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESH G KANADE(3114) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MEET THAKKAR, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 29/11/2021
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the application dated 01.05.2018 as early as possible preferably within a month.
It is the case of the petitioner that one Balsangji Pradhanji Thakor was encroaching gauchar land and though a notice of removal of encroachment was given, no action was being taken.
Admittedly, on record of the petition itself, is a notice dated 02.10.2019 by which a notice under section 105 of the Panchayats Act was given to said Balsangji Thakor. Also notices of 11.01.2021, 08.02.2021 and 22.02.2021 are placed on record. Even otherwise pursuant to the same grievance it appears that the District Development Officer has issued a notice under Section 57(1) of the Gram Panchayats Act to the members and the incharge Sarpanch. These notices are also of
Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/17412/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/11/2021
the year 2019.
The petition is belated and misconceived. No order needs to be passed in the petition and therefore stands dismissed.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's prayer for interim direction to the respondent to decide an application is maintainable given the petitioner's belated petition and absence of orders.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SOLANKI ROSHANKUMAR GANGARAMBHAI
STATE OF GUJARAT
BIREN VAISHNAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
