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

Dilipbhai Vashrambhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 28 March, 2019

Author: Anant S. Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav

        C/WPPIL/47/2017                                         ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 47 of 2017

==========================================================
            DILIPBHAI VASHRAMBHAI RATHOD & 1 other(s)
                             Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHAKTI S JADEJA(5491) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Opponent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                Date : 28/03/2019

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) It is the case of the petitioners that the land which is made available to Maldharis for rehabilitation under the head of Gauchar may create shortage of land for grazing animals in the village and the offer given for alternative Gauchar land is not yet identified or if identified at far place. At the same time, land situated in the limits / vicinity of Rajkot Municipal Corporation is available for such rehabilitation and the land belonging to the Gauchar for grazing of livestock can be preserved.

Page 1 of 2
             C/WPPIL/47/2017                                        ORDER




       A      decision           taken       by      the     authority     for

rehabilitation of Maldharis, a community having no permanent place of residence, cannot be disturbed on the ground that alternative Gauchar land is given for grazing livestock of the petitioners.

In view of the above, no direction can be given, as prayed in this Writ Petition PIL.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would like to make representation to the concerned authority for appropriate relief. The petitioners are at liberty to do so.

With the aforesaid, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 2 of 2