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 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Manglubhai vs Secretary on 11 October, 2010

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/13506/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13506 of 2010
 

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

 

MANGLUBHAI
S VALA PRESIDENT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MB PARIKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/10/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

By way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05th/11th January 2005 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.JMN/AML/ 19/2003 and holding that the petitioner-Society is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.393/1 paiki, admeasuring 19943-25 sq.mtrs., situated at village Kundla, including the open plot which was kept open as per the sanctioned plan for recreation and common use for the members of the petitioner-Society.

Admittedly the claim of the petitioner is of the year 2003 and the impugned order was passed on 05th/11th January 2005 and the petitioner has moved present petition after a period of about more than 5 (five) years. In the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330, it is held by the Apex Court that if a petition is filed beyond reasonable period, say three years, normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief.

Further, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed present petition in his individual capacity and not through the Society which is the owner of the land in question. No document in respect of authorizing the petitioner to file present petition has been produced on record. The petitioner has by way of present petition tried to place on record the documents after a period of five years which he could not place before the respondent No.1. Hence, such documents should not be allowed to be produced at this stage.

For the foregoing reasons, the aforesaid settled legal position and in view of the fact that present petition has been preferred after a period of more than five years, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain present petition. Hence, present petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.

(K.S. Jhaveri, J) Aakar     Top