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

Narendra Chaudhary vs Bopal Gram Panchayat And Another on 17 August, 2007

Author: Ravi R.Tripathi

Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi

SCA/18501/2007                       1/2                            ORDER


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION       No. 18501 of 2007
                                with
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION       No. 18001 of 2007
                                with
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION       No. 18002 of 2007
                                with
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION       No. 18003 of 2007
                                with
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION       No. 18004 of 2007
                                with
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION       No. 17908 of 2007

=========================================
=
              NARENDRA CHAUDHARY
                     Versus
       BOPAL GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ANOTHER
=========================================
=
Appearance :
MR AM PANCHAL for the Petitioners
MR BM MANGUKIYA for Respondent No.1
MR SATYAM CHHAYA, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ERVED for Respondent No.2
=========================================
=
            CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI



                            Date : 17/08/2007



ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioners.

2. Mr.Panchal makes available photographs for perusal to show the work of pipeline being led and the houses of the petitioners being exposed to the public at large, as there is no compound wall at all.

The photographs showing a different treatment being given to SCA/18501/2007 2/2 ORDER the common plot of the Panchayat and also to one bungalow which is seen from photograph No.2.

3. Mr.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the respondent - Panchayat has filed leave note.

4. The matter is adjourned to 21.08.2007. In the meantime, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 - Panchayat to take instructions as to whether the petitioners can be permitted to put up compound wall at their own cost with an understanding that in future, if same is required to be removed for public purpose, the petitioner will not be claiming any compensation for the same.

(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole