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

Revliben (Reva) Devsingbhai Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 2019

Author: G.R.Udhwani

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

           C/SCA/962/2019                                           ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 962 of 2019

==========================================================
               REVLIBEN (REVA) DEVSINGBHAI CHAUDHARI
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAGATSINH L VASAVA(7888) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3
 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                                 Date : 22/01/2019
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 10.09.2018 rendered by the Additional (Ad-hoc) District Judge, Vyara-Tapi below Misc. Civil Application No.13 of 2017 confirming the order dated 19.06.2017 rendered by the Additional Civil Judge, Vyara below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2016.

2. On consideration of the impugned order and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would transpire that the respondent is the owner of the land in question and the petitioners on the basis of an oral agreement claimed that they were in possession of 50% of the land in question. The petitioners rested their case under Section 73-AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which imposes the restriction against transfer of occupancy to tribal or non-tribal. The petitioners herein claim Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/962/2019 ORDER to be tribals and were arrayed as original defendants in the suit. Except the revenue receipt, they could not produce any authentic document evidencing the 50% possession of the land in question with them. In absence of the evidence, the trial Court as also the appellate Court were right in issuing the interim order below Exh.5. No case is, therefore, made out for interference. The petition fails and is rejected.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J) BDSONGARA Page 2 of 2