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 0]

Gujarat High Court

Champaben vs Pravinkumar on 29 September, 2010

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6610/1994	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6610 of 1994
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

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


 

CHAMPABEN
RAMANBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PRAVINKUMAR
PETRIC TAILOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
BC DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR CB DASTOOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
NIKUNT RAVAL ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

Date
: 29/09/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT 

The present petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State dated 13/12/1993 whereby the revision application of the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the Collector dated 24/05/1993 came to be confirmed.

2. The shorts facts of the case are that petitioner purchased the final plot NO.497 of Revenue Survey No.166 T.P. Scheme No.12 of Nizampura, Vadodara by a registered sale deed from one Ashokkumuar Ishwardas. The Collector, Vadodara by his order dated 30/06/1992 granted NA Permission under the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code of the land in question and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has also granted permission to construct upon the said land. However, the Collector by its order dated 24/05/1993 ordered to remove construction made on the plot, against which petitioner had preferred a Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals)which came to be dismissed. Hence the present petition.

4. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that petitioner was a bona-fide purchaser of the plot No.497 for the value without notice and respondent No.2 ought not to have held that construction was on the common plot and is required to be removed. It is contended that as such there is no Co-operative Society registered and therefore in the Final Plot where there are different plots, question would not arise to keep the common plot. It is lastly submitted that respondent No.1 having failed to obtain injunction from the competent Civil Court, made a representation before the Collector who in turn passed the order of removal of constitution made in Final Plot No.497 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause or of hearing.

5. Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and having perused the orders passed by both the authorities below, this Court is the opinion that both the authority have categorically held that common plot was sanctioned with NA Permission which can be proved from Annexure - A VII issued by the Deputy Town Planning Officer, Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The revisional authority has specifically held that permission qua 16 % was given by the Corporation for the purpose of common plot utility and not for misuse of it by way of selling. It is of the joint ownership of the plot holders as well as in the map of original Town Planning Scheme wherein the Final Plot No.497 is shown as reserved land for garden. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are just and proper and do not require to be interfered with.

6. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the authorities below. The petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim-relief, if any, stands vacated.

(K S JHAVERI, J.) sompura     Top