Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Rameshbhai Mathurbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 6 May, 2013

Author: S.G.Shah

Bench: S.G.Shah

  
	 
	 RAMESHBHAI MATHURBHAI PATELV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/996/1997
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 996 of 1997
 


 


 

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


RAMESHBHAI MATHURBHAI PATEL
 &  4....Petitioner(s)
 


Versus
 


STATE OF GUJARAT  & 
2....Respondent(s)
 

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

Appearance:
 

DELETED
for the Petitioner(s) No. 5
 

MR
JITENDRA M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2.2 , 3 - 4
 

MS
TRUSHA MEHTA, Asst.Govt.Pleader for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
 

NOTICE
SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
 

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

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
			
		
	

 


 Date : 06/05/2013
 


 ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel Mr.Jitendra Patel for the petitioners and Ms.Trusha Mehta, learned AGP for the respondents.

Probably, the only dispute remains is regarding the identification and thereby calculation of land to be held by the petitioners and surplus land inasmuch aSs, as per the petitioners total land is only 46 acres whereas according to the Authority total land is 82 acres. There cannot be such a big difference. Therefore, there is certainly some discrepancy in consideration of calculation of excess land by the petitioners. Otherwise also, the concerned Authorities throughout has never dealt with the issues on merits, but dismissed the concerned appeal and revision on technical grounds of delay only.

In view of above fact, petitioners have agreed that since they are entitled to keep 36 acres land in all, considering the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, they are ready and willing to let-go the surplus land, if any. It is further stated by learned advocate for the petitioners that they may be give a chance to select the land. According to them, only 10 acres land may be surplus. In view of such fact, it would be necessary for the respondent authorities to disclose on oath the correct position so far as the dispute on hand is concerned i.e. proper calculation and proper details of the surplus land. They may do so within four weeks.

(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 2 of 2