Gujarat High Court
Thakor Lalaji Bhudhaji & 153 vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 23 September, 2014
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/13325/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13325 of 2014
================================================================
THAKOR LALAJI BHUDHAJI & 153....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 154
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 154
MR MANAN MEHTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 23/09/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Leave to amend the petition as per draft amendment dated 22.9.2014 is granted.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (PIL) No.6/2013 has appeared and claimed that the said petitioner in WP (PIL) No.6/2013 has filed caveat in respect of this proceeding and that for the said caveator, he may be permitted to attend the hearing of present petition. The said caveator has not taken out any application seeking permission to be impleaded as party in Page 1 C/SCA/13325/2014 ORDER present proceeding.
4. The petitioners have taken out present petition against the notices served on them and against the authority who has issued notices. 4.1 In that view of the matter, when the said petitioners are not impleaded as party in present proceeding, the said persons cannot be considered as party respondents in present petition. 4.2 It also appears that the said caveator has also taken out proceeding alleging contempt of court by / against the respondent authorities on the ground that the respondent authorities have not complied the directions passed by the Court in WP (PIL) No.6/2013.
4.3 The petitioners have brought under challenge the order dated 9.9.2014.
4.4 For considering the grievance made by the petitioners, the Court called learned advocates who appeared before Hon'ble Division Bench for Page 2 C/SCA/13325/2014 ORDER the Taluka Development Officer and District Development Officer in writ petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2013 and writ petition Special Civil Application No. 2425 of 2014, more particularly to ascertain as to whether while passing the impugned orders the respondent authorities have taken into consideration three types of lands of which reference is made in the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 2425 of 2014 viz.
(a) Gaucher Land (b) Gamtal Land (c) Land belonging to Housing Board.
4.5 The Court inquired about said aspect from the respondent authority in view of the fact that the same authority has issued orders / notices in respect of all petitioners without clarifying as to whether the concerned noticee is occupying the Gaucher Land, Gamtal Land and Land belonging to Housing Board.
5. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the District Development Officer submitted that the Page 3 C/SCA/13325/2014 ORDER aspect can be dealt with and explained by Taluka Development Officer.
6. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the Taluka Development Officer could not give proper reply / response for want of sufficient information.
7. In this view of the matter, so as to enable Taluka Development Officer and District Development Officer to file appropriate reply wherefrom the relevant fact can be ascertained following order is passed:
Issue Notice returnable on 29.9.2014. The petitioner shall supply copy of the petition along with all annexures to Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the Taluka Development Officer and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the District Development Officer and to learned AGP. The entire set of annexures should be supplied to learned advocates today.
In addition to normal mode of service through office, direct service is permitted. Until then Page 4 C/SCA/13325/2014 ORDER the effect of the order passed by Honourable Division Bench in Misc. Civil Application No. 2636 of 2014 will continue.
This order would not stand in way of the applicant to take out appropriate application seeking permission to join present proceedings (if he so desires) after making out appropriate ground and justification in support of the request being impleaded in the proceeding.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Suresh* Page 5