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 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Chandubhai Purshatambhai Bhalala vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 2 January, 2018

Author: A.Y. Kogje

Bench: A.Y. Kogje

                   C/LPA/3/2018                                              ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 3 of 2018
                         In CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15190 of 2017
                  In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16733 of 2017
                                            With
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 of 2018
                                              In
                         LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 3 of 2018

         ================================================================
                 CHANDUBHAI PURSHATAMBHAI BHALALA....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR PJ KANABAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         A R SHAH, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 3 , 5
         MR VENUGOPAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
         ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                                     Date : 02/01/2018


                                      ORAL ORDER

NOTICE returnable on 10th JANUARY, 2018. Learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Shah who appears on behalf of the Caveator waives service of notice for the respondents No.3 and 5.

The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge passed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate Mr. P.J. Kanabar for the Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Jan 02 22:55:58 IST 2018 C/LPA/3/2018 ORDER appellant submitted that the plot in question is from the beginning considered as a common plot and therefore, be made available for common amenities of the citizens. This fact is strongly disputed by learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Shah who appears on behalf of the Panchayat and who has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents on record, more particularly, the Kararnama dated 05.07.2013 bearing the signature of the appellant himself by which the construction on the plot was agreed to be carried out in a particular manner and that the Panchayat is carrying out the construction in conformity of the said agreement.

Considering the aforesaid facts, more particularly, when the construction of the Panchayat Building is in progress, it would not be in the interest to stall the said construction. However, the construction made thus, would obviously be subject to the final outcome of the petition.

Direct Service is permitted for the rest.

Sd/-

(A.Y. KOGJE, J.) CAROLINE Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Jan 02 22:55:58 IST 2018