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 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Budhaji Holaji Vaghari vs Gotabhai Chaturbhai Parmar on 25 June, 2013

Author: Harsha Devani

Bench: Harsha Devani

  
	 
	 BUDHAJI HOLAJI VAGHARI DECEASED THRO LEGAL HEIRSV/SGOTABHAI CHATURBHAI PARMAR DECEASED THRO HEIRS
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/SCA/9457/2013
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION  NO. 9457 of 2013
 


With 

 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 9971 of 2013
 


With 

 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 9983 of 2013
 

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


BUDHAJI HOLAJI VAGHARI
DECEASED THRO LEGAL HEIRS  &  6....Petitioner(s)
 


Versus
 


GOTABHAI CHATURBHAI PARMAR
DECEASED THRO HEIRS  &  3....Respondent(s)
 

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

Appearance:
 

MR
RASESH H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 7
 

MR.HEMANG
H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 7
 

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

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 25/06/2013
 


 

 


COMMON ORAL ORDER

Mr.H.M.Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that before the Deputy Collector, three appeals had been preferred. Two appeals had been preferred against the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT under Section 32O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 whereby the petitioners were held to be tenants, whereas one appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT under section 84C of the Tenancy Act. It was submitted that the Deputy Collector, by a common order dated 29th May, 1992, has partly allowed the appeal in respect of the order passed under section 84C of the Tenancy Act and has remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT to decide the same afresh, whereas the order under section 32O has been quashed and set aside. It was submitted that revisional authority has also considered the case in the light of the order passed under section 84C and has failed to consider the fact that the order under section 32O of the Tenancy Act has been totally quashed and set aside. Thus, the petitioner stands non suited, inasmuch as, the order passed by the Mamlatdar under section 32O stands quashed and set aside by the order of the Deputy Collector.

Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Issue Notice returnable on 23rd July, 2013.

Direct service is permitted.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) ashish Page 2 of 2