Gujarat High Court
Thakor Jaswantbhai Balusinh vs State Of Gujarat & on 18 March, 2015
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/11046/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11046 of 2013
================================================================
THAKOR JASWANTBHAI BALUSINH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JN JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. JYOTIBEN BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 18/03/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226, 227, 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Private Forest Land Act, 1973 for the prayer inter alia:
"A. This petition be admitted and record and proceeding of GRT in Appeal No. AA 107/86 arising from Case No. 53/75 be called for. B. This petition be allowed and order in Appeal No. AA 107/86 and 53/75 be quashed and set aside.
C. That cost of this petition be provided for from the respondents."
2. Learned Advocate Shri J.N.Jadeja for the petitioner is not present and therefore the court had no option but to proceed with the Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/11046/2013 ORDER matter on the basis of available records.
3. As it transpires from the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision i.e. Appeal No. 107/86 arising from Case No. 53/75 that the case of the petitioner has been lacking any merit or rather it reflects the casual approach of the petitioner. The order passed by the Revenue Tribunal has referred to the background with regard to the acquisition of the land for the forest under the Private Forest Land Act, 1973. As per Section 7 of the Private Forest Act, the compensation has been made. The award was declared in presence of the Applicant / Petitioner on 29.7.1976 and thereafter further proceedings were initiated, which also came to be disposed of. However, the petitioner has withdrawn the Appeal No. 126 of 1984 preferred by him and after 10 years again sought to revive the same with the application for condonation of delay which lead to the passing of the impugned order. The impugned order clearly refers to the fact that the transaction or the acquisition for which the compensation is paid in 1976 culminated into Appeal in 1986 which is not sought to be reopened in the year 2012 and therefore the Revenue Tribunal by the imnpugned order declined to interfere and dismissed the same Appeal.
4. Therefore, considering the background of the facts, as this Court is in agreement with the findings and the conclusion which does not Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/11046/2013 ORDER call for any interference in exercise of discretionay jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) JNW Page 3 of 3